Obama's Iraq Speech
On the heels of what Obama's team called today in a conference call the "pageantry of hearings," Barack Obama came out with a "major national security" address. It was given in Clinton, Iowa. Insert irony here.
A couple of things stood out, which were described as "classic Senator Obama." I covered quite a bit on my show today. But his focus on the humanitarian aspect of the blowback of the war is one issue that clearly caught my attention. Is anyone else talking about this aspect?
Take Care of Refugees: Barack Obama would establish an international working group dedicated to addressing the Iraqi refugee crisis. He would increase American investments in Iraq's refugees and internally displaced people and to neighboring countries that house them to at least $2 billion. He would work with Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt to dramatically increase access to social services for refugees. He also would work to create safe-havens for Iraqis who remain in Iraq, but are displaced from the homes by violence.
Secure International Assistance: To improve conditions in Iraq, Barack Obama would secure greater regional contributions to humanitarian relief, refugee care and integration, and economic assistance. ... ..Fulfill American's Obligations to Accept Refugees: The State Department pledged to allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees into America, but has only let 190 into the United States. Obama would expedite the Department of Homeland Security's review of Iraqi asylum applicants. Obama also would appeal to the Coalition's original partners to expand their refugee quotas. ... ..
Obama also spoke out strongly on Iran today. His friend Joe won't like it.
Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.Obama's suggestion of a new Constitutional convention, which "should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached" is rife with problems and the inherent overreach that the nationalistic Iraqis will hate. It's silly, frankly. What are we going to do lock the door?
Ezra Klein questioned the Obama team about residual forces. The answer was interesting and included language that always amuses me. Talking about how any responsible commander in chief would say the same thing and that, "You can't possibly answer those questions until speaking to the generals." Being a believer in residual forces the answer was logical and realistic in nature. Maybe if the response hadn't been couched in what sounded decidedly like an admonition it wouldn't have hit me as posturing Obama's grown-up-ness. That aside, no candidate can be expected to commit to residual force numbers this far out. It's absurd to think otherwise, though I understand the push to get them to try. We have no idea what we'll face in January '09, and that's not offering cover for our candidates. It's acknowledging Bush's ineptitude as commander in chief, which will continue to unravel in Iraq.
As for what Congress can do right now on Iraq, there was no answer from Obama's team. Silence often screams. We will soon see what plays out.
David Corn asked the differences in Obama and his opponents, like the senator from New York. It was an opportunity, which the team on the call decided to broaden into "without naming names," then said... nothing of note. Evidently breaking down differences is seen as being divisive. I thought it was campaigning.
The question I asked seemed obvious, especially since Obama didn't detail the reasons for it in his speech. But I was after something more. Obama's legislation reads like this: The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. In the speech he says: I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. It continues:
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.The obvious explanation not lost on me is that since no redeployment has begun it will take longer to get it done. I understand that, but the difference is quite a few more months. I'm trying to discern the rationale for the extra time, because it's important. "I hope he doesn't get accused of shifting benchmarks," was the comment to me after a follow up.
Actually, I'm hoping that Barack Obama is talking to military people who like (former admiral) Representative Joe Sestak believe it will take quite a bit longer than people are talking about to redeploy, and Obama is listening. Getting troops, equipment, plus keeping things stable on our side until we get out, isn't going to be easy. We're looking at 15-18 months, as far as I can tell. The push on redeployment dates by Obama, beyond the obvious, seems to signal something important. A signal that foreign policy realism has found a home, which is likely a further sign that Obama is listening Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
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
Thanks Taylor for bringing attention to Obama's speech. It felt good to see the "old Obama" standing up for what's right and wrong, but I got disappointed as I listened more and the "new Obama" started creeping in, full of nuance and Washington-speak like saying he wants to withdraw "combat troops" (which excludes most troops in Iraq and excludes military contractors) and "with the goal of" and "bipartisan" ...
Meanwhile I heard Biden on the news this morning and while I don't agree with his plan, he was speaking very clearly and forcefully about why what Bush is proposing won't work and what he thinks we need to do instead. That's what we need right now from Democratic leaders: what are we going to do next, are we getting out or are we staying there for the long term (5+ years)? Why are we there anyway, what is our objective?
Of course everyone will eventually need to reach a compromise, but you don't negotiate by starting out with a waffly position as I'm afraid Obama is doing. He needs to go back to being the great candidate and speaker that he was in 2002-3 and stop listening to the Washington campaign lackeys.
I have to add after reading some of the comments.
So many think we should be going with the really experienced in foreign policy.
I cannot disagree more.
Our greatest presidents were not all that experienced. Lincoln had a civil war on his hands and only one term in congress.
FDR had experience but, was out of the game for a very long time due to polio.
Truman was not very experienced and Kenndy was a one term senator.
We have faced our greatest crisis with the most unlikely presidents.
Because the people when with their gut. for all of the policy proposals, ect. it does little good in reality when most of them will be torn apart in the congress.
Bloggers, et.al. talk about policy and white papers more to sound self important. How many really read all of them that are out and study them?
When our country faced it greatest tests we always went with the one who we liked the best. Not the most experienced or best known. We were always wise when we decided to take the chance and go with the right one.
and they always came through and more so.
Yes, there is bush. but, many thought his dad would be there to help him. And he was gov. of Texas and re elected to it.
you need someone with judgment and the temperment for the job. A first class temperment. and someone with high intelligence and a deep thinker who can assess the information. someone with good advisors. Like FDR's brains trust. And it seems to me Obama has one of his own. the experts and professors and such like FDR had. he seems to draw from the universities and the think tanks and the best of their field.
I like Obama's way of listening to advice, thinking independently and having shown a great deal of judgment and character and leadership. these are qualities missing with Hillary.
Frankly, I would sleep much better with a president Obama than a president Hillary in the oval office.
I saw Samatha Power on Tucker tonight and she said the reason for not having a number set down for how many troops is that you cannot know at this point.
she also said Obama speaks to many military men and experts. He is endorsed by Zbig Brzezinski, who was the one who introduced him at the speech.
Obama is surrounded by some of the best minds in foreign policy who see him as the one to change cw and are very much against Hillary, seeing her as being close to the neocons in her beliefs. They feel she would be a tragic mistake.
Obama is also supported by Richard Clark, Anthony Lake and over half of Bill's old FP and national security teams have left to go with Obama because of the same reason as stated above.
Is Obama running for President of the Glee-Club or President of the United States? What tripe he spews.
Let's all get together and hold hands and kiss on the cheek. Balderdash!
It's as plain as the nose on your face that the muslims in that part of the world lust for their brother's blood. Arab hates Persian. Shiite hates Suni. These people kill like the snakes that they are - and no amount of conferences and committees and working groups are going to change that.
The only thing that works is overwhelming, unforgiving force! Use it or lose it!
"The only thing that works is overwhelming, unforgiving force! Use it or lose it!"
Because things have just been SWELL for the US military since "Emission Accomplish
Didn't "Emission Accomplished" happen in the Clinton Admin?...A
Thanks for the Fox News op-ed on Obama's speech. I see you've covered all the usual bases:
- Muslims are all terrorists - Check
- There is no solution but more violence - Check
- Anyone who argues for diplomacy is a pansy- Check
It's reassuring to know that the more things change- how many Iraqi civilians and US servicemembers have died now? The more things stay the same - Bush's supporters will find a way to argue that everyone who's lives we've ruined somehow deserved it and there can't be anything that will stop the violence except more violence.
They don't call you guys Dead-Enders for nothing, rwoods. All Bush and his supporters have done is provide a one-way ticket to hell for anyone living in the Middle East and a one-way ticket to Iraq for far too many of our troops.
Let's just hope that the rest of America, who still have and use all of the mental faculties, will support Barack Obama and everyone else who is actually has a plan for what to do about the violence in Iraq and how to get us out of there.
"The only thing that works is overwhelming, unforgiving force! Use it or lose it! " -rwoodsathome
Shorter rwoodsathome: "Let's be the biggest pricks we can, and see how that works, it's done so well for us in the past!"
The problem is, that's what's gotten us to this point, Machiavellian scheming with no integrity has garnered us muslim hate. Read your history, I know for a fact that it will be a surprise to you.
yep, thanks for noticing. Senator Obama has been the only realist in a presidential race crowded by people who could not wait a minute to deploy nukes or continue on with the militancy and arrogance that now defines our foreign policy. Obama is the only one who actually thinks and see the world beyong the military industrial complex and the lobbyists who own Washington politicians. Obama is the future. Is it any wonder ZBIG is with him?
Obama O8.
that should have read "Taylor Marsh was right on the mark when SHE pointed out..."
Taylor Marsh was right on the mark when he pointed out that Obama is the only candidate talking about the humanitarian repercussions of our Iraq withdrawal. In the pundits' stale debate between "judgment" and "experience," I think this illustrates that Obama has the judgment to learn from our failed experience in Iraq.
The debate over what to do in Iraq evokes visceral reactions from the left and the right, but both sides should recognize that the aftermath of our eventual withdrawal includes millions of refugees to Syria and Jordan (in fact Syria already hosts 1 million of Iraq's 4 million refugees). This is an opportunity for the U.S. to regain credibility by taking the lead on tough humanitarian issues like the status of refugees.
Only when we show the world that we're serious about our moral commitment to Iraq will we be able to garner the international support necessary to stabilize the region. I think Obama's foreign policy team recognizes this crucial concept. There a number of other key insights in Obama's Iraq speech, but I wanted to say kudos to Taylor Marsh for articulating this important point.
Thank you for providing a thoughtful and balanced assessment of Obama's policy. I agree, I have not heard the other candidates speak about the refugees, support assistance, etc. The traditional media rarely reports the substance of the speeches because they are stuck in their narrative of experience vs. change vs. populist. To make matters worse now that the Republicans have access to the old Clinton files we get to watch the press re-analyze the investigations from the past. I can't take another election based on fabricated issues of style (sighing, likeability, length of kiss) when we have serious, life altering problems to solve.
Actually, Senator Biden and others have addressed this issue...wi
http://bid
By the way, shouldn't the next President of the United States have a finely tuned and fully informed world view of his own BEFORE he starts consulting with the advisors?
I mean...eve
Can anyone seriously imagine the Democratic nominee asking Obama to be his SOS? And if Senator Obama is not being openly considered for the SOS role, then why on earth is anyone taking him seriously as a Presidential candidate? I'm not trying to be facetious here...I ask that sincerely. And, by the way, the same would apply to Senators Clinton and Edwards.
What I'm saying here is that, at a time in history when the US is in such peril, at home and abroad, wouldn't it just make sense that the next President be the one with impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials that are unmatched by any of his rivals?
'Make History and Hope Rhyme'...B
Hi Liz.
1- Please point out how consulting with advisors means that person doesn't have a fully informed worldview? That's quite an assumption.
2- I haven't seen anybody, let alone "everybody" asking if Biden is bucking for SOS.
3- Anybody that voted for the war doesn't deserve to be elected. Biden's vote and support for the war makes his record far from impeccable and quite impeachable.
Furthermore, Al Quaeda hardly imperils the US. We are all more likely to be struck by lightning than to be a victim of a terror attack. The "existential threat" framing is pure neocon. Fear, fear, fear.
BTW- It's just a thought, but a post that mentions a candidate doesn't mean that comments about any candidate or topic are appropriate.
I realize your first comment was on topic (though not fully accurate), but this is pretty much out of left field.
Hey altohone! This is fun.
1. The thing is that Obama needs consultation to FORM his worldview.
2. Oh yeah...man
3. Senator Biden didn't vote for this war (it's complicated, but true), is hardly a supporter of this war, and...you know what...do you really want to get me started on this one...you will get both barrels! Consider yourself forewarned.
Where did I say that the US was imperiled by al-Qaeda? The US has been imperiled by the Bush-Cheney administration and their misguided and incompetent policies, on any number of issues. And, it will take YEARS to recover, not to mention intelligent and courageous leadership of the type that Senator Biden would surely provide...
I have found that the best way to handle off-topic comments is to simply ignore them.
Thank you for the writ, Taylor.
His candidacy is fascinating. The idea of an Obama Presidency would turn the entire discussion of Middle East peace "right side up."
We've never had this before. Most of our Presidents have been Anglo-Saxon. That made it easy for Arabs to distance themselves from the American way of life. In effect, they could easily say they don't have anything in common with us, that we are just Europeans with a similar worldview as the rest of the West; only much dumber.
Obama presents new, unventured territory.
The Middle East does not have the ethnic lens America has. Thus, they may view Obama as a Kenyan aspiring to be another Anwar Sadat (the late Egyptian peacemaker).
Therefore, if Obama were to be elected, the entire Middle East would have to recalibrate it's response to America. The unexpected ascendancy of a Kenyan (Kenya is not far from the trouble spots we need to calm) would send a few shockwaves from Jordan all the way to Kabul.
It's not just Obama the man. It's the policies you point out that may begin to change world opinion of America. We already know that he's willing to threaten Al Qaeda directly (which would be a Godsend for Arab governments). But, it's so much easier to do when you treat Arabs as equals.
His willingness to meet with leaders from Iran and Syria dovetail perfectly into his plan to stabilize Iraq: "He would work with Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt to dramatically increase access to social services for refugees. He also would work to create safe-havens for Iraqis who remain in Iraq, but are displaced from the homes by violence."
There is only one question to be asked: With our pathetic track record of electing Presidents for all the wrong reasons (ethnocentrism, Christian fundamentalism, anti-"whatever we hate"), are we as Americans ready to elect someone new?
Even if it meant preventing another 9/11 attack? Or, is another Anglo-Saxon looking President (male or female) what we need to calm people of color?
Well said and thought provoking.
Note that Israel's enduring peace deals with each of Egypt and Jordan were brokered by... wait for it... white guys, as was the most recent near-miss (loosely put) brokered by Pres Clinton and SecState Albright, white, but female.
The difference was the courage of the two Arab leaders, not the ethnicity of the US brokers.
Obama is American not kenyan, just need a little correction there.
This might be the faint glimmer of genuine "leadership" qualities beginning to surface. It's pretty easy to hang with the herd and agree that Iraq is a mess, but it takes a leader to shoulder the responsibility of trying to really understand the situation and map out a plausible course of action.
Even if his initial plan is full of holes, he and his crew are working in the right direction; impractical aspects can be reworked or deleted as the plan develops. We shall all be interested to see what the other candidates propose. Simply opposing the Bush non-strategy will be inadequate going forward since Senator Obama has initiated the "Plan B Bake-Off", so to speak.
Candidates who do NOT oppose the Bush non-strategy are unworthy of consideration as serious candidates.
Probably the most important part of the speech was the challenge to Cheney's threats against Iran: "Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."
At long last, someone has said that the bombing and invasion of Iran is not a foregone conclusion. That also looks vaguely like leadership, but we'll have to see some action to back up the verbiage. I'm almost cautiously optimistic about this candidate, but I don't want to go overboard - my hopes have been dashed before!
Thanks for the summary.
I'm a little surprised about your claim that a new Constitutional convention plan was "silly" and "rife with problems".
Pointing out what you consider the problems to be and what the "inherent overreach" is would help us understnd what you mean. Which "nationalist" group you are referring to would also help.
Assuming that "adjourning" a convention is the same as adjourning a meeting is silly. A process like a convention would be lengthy and locking the doors is your suggestion
Obama's speech was well thought out. His reluctance to provide his opponents with ammunition is understandable.
It isn't surprising that all his Democratic challengers, most of whom voted for the war or supported it, are now attacking him.
To see Edwards and Dodd attack his ideas for not being aggressive enough is rather ironic since both helped create the mess... enabling it with their votes and speeches supporting the disastrous policy. Your post implies that Clinton insider Richardson's plan for withdrawal is unrealistic since his plan is too rapid to be executed safely... though you don't come out and say it.
Their focus on the leading challenger rather than the frontrunner suggests an effort to distinguish themselves without hurting their fellow establishment enabler.
It sounds to me like Senator Obama is listening very carefully to his other friend, Joe. The junior Senator from Illinois seems to be learning many of his foreign policy lessons and taking his "talking points" ...the ones that make sense, at least...fr
I wish Chris Dodd would read your assessment of Obama's speech. He said it lacked substance, which is quite laughable.
Obama has the qualifications and experience and JUDGMENT on the issue of Iraq that others like Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards don't: he saw the war for what it was, and for what it would become.
Thanks Taylor for a great assessment of Obama's speech.
I know Obama is Charismatic. I give him one for that but frankly, I'm tired of presidents who need on-the-job training.
Obama is extremely brilliant. If he ever hesitates or reverts to Umms and Uhhs or long windedness in a speech, it is because he is smart enough to know he hasn't owned the material. He would be better off taking a few more years to own material that he studied and developed by himself.
BTW the "I was against the war from the beginning," is so old I think I fell off my dinasaur the last time I heard it.
"BTW the "I was against the war from the beginning," is so old I think I fell off my dinasaur the last time I heard it."
-JoAnnCr
If itys so freakin' old, how come Hillary, Edwards, Dodd, and even Biden NEVER have an adequate response to it. NEVER! As long as the war remains THE ISSUE, his stance against the war will remain significant to me and millions of others.
And why did you write this: " I'm tired of presidents who need on-the-job training."
Huh? Did you read the current GQ when the writer penned these memorable words:
"“Even on the much hyped question of experience, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are roughly equal, each having no more than a decade of legislative experience and no executive experience. Given the historic opportunity of an electorate desperate for change and disinclined to elect another Republican president, the Democratic contest is really about who will be the most transformational president. Obama’s case is that to change anything in America, we have to begin by changing our politics, and he offers the kind of campaign he’s running as evidence that he means it”.
So you say that electing Obama would be like putting some in the WHite House who needs "on the job training", but even Bill Clinton said that no one is ready to be president before they get in. No one. Carter said that. Even Bush Sr. said that.
So your argument hold no water - especially if you are going to compare Obama to Bush ("I'm tired of presidents who need on-the-job training"). That's low.
"Obama's suggestion of a new Constitutional convention, which "should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached" is rife with problems".
Yes, rife with problems. That sums up EVERY OPTION AT OUR DISPOSAL. All possibilities are "rife with problems", which is why we're still stuck there! At least Obama had the vision to forsee this f*@#ing mess!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
