Obama's Strategy for Iraq

[Taco John]

The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government – a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.

When I first advocated steps along these lines over a year ago, I had hoped that this phased redeployment could begin by the end of 2006. Such a timetable may now need to begin in 2007, but begin it must. For only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely – that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq.

Let me be more specific. 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 – but it should not depend on Iraqi approval.

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. Moreover, it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq 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 the 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. The President’s decision to go to war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for Afghanistan -- we have seen a fierce Taliban offensive, a spike in terrorist attacks, and a narcotrafficking problem spiral out of control. Instead of consolidating the gains made by the Karzai government, we are backsliding towards chaos. By redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will answer NATO’s call for more troops and 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.

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. But only if U.S. commanders think such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us – in a public and unambiguous way – for such continued support. 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 in this region.

The second part of our strategy should be to couple this phased redeployment with a more effective plan that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead, intensifies and focuses our efforts to train those forces, and expands the numbers of our personnel – especially special forces – who are deployed with Iraqi as units advisers.

An increase in the quality and quantity of U.S. personnel in training and advisory roles can guard against militia infiltration of Iraqi units; develop the trust and goodwill of Iraqi soldiers and the local populace; and lead to better intelligence while undercutting grassroots support for the insurgents.

Let me emphasize one vital point – any U.S. strategy must address the problem of sectarian militias in Iraq. In the absence of a genuine commitment on the part of all of the factions in Iraq to deal with this issue, it is doubtful that a unified Iraqi government can function for long, and it is doubtful that U.S. forces, no matter how large, can prevent an escalation of widespread sectarian killing.

Of course, in order to convince the various factions to embark on the admittedly difficult task of disarming their militias, the Iraqi government must also make headway on reforming the institutions that support the military and the police. We can teach the soldiers to fight and police to patrol, but if the Iraqi government will not properly feed, adequately pay, or provide them with the equipment they need, they will continue to desert in large numbers, or maintain fealty only to their religious group rather than the national government. The security forces have to be far more inclusive – standing up an army composed mainly of Shiites and Kurds will only cause the Sunnis to feel more threatened and fight even harder.

The third part of our strategy should be to link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence of tangible progress toward a political settlement.

So far, Congress has given the Administration unprecedented flexibility in determining how to spend more than $20 billion dollars in Iraq. But instead of effectively targeting this aid, we have seen some of the largest waste, fraud, and abuse of foreign aid in American history. Today, the Iraqi landscape is littered with ill-conceived, half-finished projects that have done almost nothing to help the Iraqi people or stabilize the country.

This must end in the next session of Congress, when we reassert our authority to oversee the management of this war. This means no more bloated no-bid contracts that cost the taxpayers millions in overhead and administrative expenses.

We need to continue to provide some basic reconstruction funding that will be used to put Iraqis to work and help our troops stabilize key areas. But we need to also move towards more condition-based aid packages where economic assistance is contingent upon the ability of Iraqis to make measurable progress on reducing sectarian violence and forging a lasting political settlement.

Finally, we have to realize that the entire Middle East has an enormous stake in the outcome of Iraq, and we must engage neighboring countries in finding a solution.

This includes opening dialogue with both Syria and Iran, an idea supported by both James Baker and Robert Gates. We know these countries want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region – and within their own countries.

And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, Jordanians, the British and others. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution.

Make no mistake – 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 drawdown forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us.


http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06112...raq/index.html

[Taco John]

Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

[Taco John]

No comments here on a plan for success in Iraq?

[Stormontheplains]

the troop surge with pressure on Iran WILL DO THE TRICK. A vote for BO is a vote for cocaine

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

the troop surge with pressure on Iran WILL DO THE TRICK. A vote for BO is a vote for cocaine

Hmmm... You sound like the Democrats circa 1999, 2003 on Bush.

Not interested in the hyperbole. Was more interested in hearing actual opinions on the plan that Obama has advanced.

[Bronco Bob]

Isn't this basically what John Murtha has been pushing for about a year now?
I can't really see as he is saying anything new. The only difference is the
Republican attack machine so far is giving Obama a free ride unlike they did
with Murtha.

[BroncoInferno]

The only stategy I'm interested in hearing: get out NOW. This war is a failure and will not improve by staying.

[Spider]

I wish I could vote for Obama but that drug use is a problem for me

[Hogan11]

Obama's strategy can't work because he's a Democrat....didn't you get the memo on that Taco?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I wish I could vote for Obama but that drug use is a problem for me

Eh... Bush and Clinton have pretty much beat that door down. It doesn't bother me. He doesn't appear to be an addictive personality. I'm more interested in the fact that he made it through Harvard Law and later became a professor on constitutional law than the fact that he experimented with drugs when he was an adolescent.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm more interested in the fact that he made it through Harvard Law and later became a professor on constitutional law than the fact that he experimented with drugs when he was an adolescent.

Too bad most of the Nation couldn't feel this way....but that adolescent use will be exploited to the hilt in true American political fashion. Hey, he's a professor on constitutional law and an intellectual, he's far too dangerous to hold the Presidency now!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

the troop surge with pressure on Iran WILL DO THE TRICK. A vote for BO is a vote for cocaine

And more terrorists attacks on the US.....dman

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

Obama's strategy can't work because he's a Democrat....didn't you get the memo on that Taco?

Actually, having read it somewhat thoroughly, it appears to me anyway he's put some thought into this and if executed properly it could be pulled off, with some help. I do give him credit putting a palatable plan on the table wrt a rapid withdrawal. However, it's not what we need right now in my opinion. But, it's obvious the gentleman from illinois has some smarts up stairs. good on him for stepping up and putting his money where his mouth is. More need to follow his lead.......dman

*for the repubs out there, this guy is NOT a threat as long as he doesn't flip flop. IF he changes his position (which I don't believe he will) on some key issues, he'll be a REAL threat to nail down the presidency in '08..

[Spider]

Originally Posted by defenseman

And more terrorists attacks on the US.....dman

Bullshít ...... no need to go lying Dman .......

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Bullshít ...... no need to go lying Dman .......

lying and "predicting" are two different things. Once can't lie about the future, just misinterpret....next...dman

[Spider]

Originally Posted by defenseman

lying and "predicting" are two different things. Once can't lie about the future, just misinterpret....next...dman

if that helps you

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Hmmm... You sound like the Democrats circa 1999, 2003 on Bush.

Not interested in the hyperbole. Was more interested in hearing actual opinions on the plan that Obama has advanced.

funny though how it mattered to Dems when it was Bush, but now it Doesn't with Obama. I know repubs are same way. I'm just saying it's funny.

[Atlas]

I really like Obama... I like him a lot. I haven't been this excited since Bill was running for re-election.

Right now there isn't even a second choice for me. I guess I'll have to wait for the primaries to find a second choice to Obama.

Did I mention that Obama will be the first 1/2 white President if he gets elected!!! WHAAAHOOOOOOO!!!!

[cutthemdown]

eventually by election people who seem soft on terrorists will lose votes. Right now the country loves to here it but really the mood often changes over the course of a year. Obama doesn't make me feel like he would be very tough on terrorist or be able to do what might be required over the next 4 years. The next 4 years will determine if Iran build a nuke. The number one priority in mideast is to stop that. Lybia stopped, if we could get Iran to stop that would be huge. Will Obama in office mean Iran knows we won't do anything so build away? I mean no one really believes sanctions alone will stop them right? I mean even democrats realize that you at least need the threat of military. I think in the end Hillary will seem tougher and win the democratic nomination.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I really like Obama... I like him a lot. I haven't been this excited since Bill was running for re-election.

Right now there isn't even a second choice for me. I guess I'll have to wait for the primaries to find a second choice to Obama.

Did I mention that Obama will be the first 1/2 white President if he gets elected!!! WHAAAHOOOOOOO!!!!

Obama has caused quite a stir. You wonder though how he would do in the southern swing states like Fla/ark/Mo in a general election however. I'm not sure he can win.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

funny though how it mattered to Dems when it was Bush, but now it Doesn't with Obama. I know repubs are same way. I'm just saying it's funny.

not with me .........

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

not with me .........

yeah spide I know it is for you. To bad for you because it sounds like otherwise you would have someone you could really pull for. Not one on either side make me excited to vote or feel good about chances we will get a great President.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

yeah spide I know it is for you. To bad for you because it sounds like otherwise you would have someone you could really pull for. Not one on either side make me excited to vote or feel good about chances we will get a great President.

Perhaps , but if I start giving ground on that , then where do I draw the line ?

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Obama has caused quite a stir. You wonder though how he would do in the southern swing states like Fla/ark/Mo in a general election however. I'm not sure he can win.

I'm not sure he can win either.

There has never been a 1/2 white guy elected as President before.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Perhaps , but if I start giving ground on that , then where do I draw the line ?

Don't be so stubborn you fail to see someone that deserves to be seen as they are now. I'm not saying you should give ground on what you believe only that snorting some coke doesn't really mean you can't be a great leader. I'm also not saying Obama is all that I have no idea where he stands on issues yet. Looking foward to seeing Hillary and Obama go at it. Edwards I see as the odd man out. Biden doesn't have a chance.