posted
The speech he gave at DePaul University is exactly, damn near word for word, what I wanted to hear from one of, any of the candidates. Here's the full text, and here's some pull quotes:
quote:The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.
But it's also time to learn the lessons of Iraq. We're not going to defeat the threats of the 21st century on a conventional battlefield. We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors. We're not going to win a battle of ideas with bullets alone.
quote:With all that we know about what's gone wrong in Iraq, even today's debate is divorced from reality. We've got a surge that is somehow declared a success even though it has failed to enable the political reconciliation that was its stated purpose. The fact that violence today is only as horrific as in 2006 is held up as progress. Washington politicians and pundits trip over each other to debate a newspaper advertisement while our troops fight and die in Iraq.
quote:We all know what Iraq has cost us abroad. But these last few years we've seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. We face real threats. Any President needs the latitude to confront them swiftly and surely. But we've paid a heavy price for having a President whose priority is expanding his own power. The Constitution is treated like a nuisance. Matters of war and peace are used as political tools to bludgeon the other side. We get subjected to endless spin to keep our troops at war, but we don't get to see the flag-draped coffins of our heroes coming home. We get secret task forces, secret budgeting, slanted intelligence, and the shameful smearing of people who speak out against the President's policies.
All of this has left us where we are today: more divided, more distrusted, more in debt, and mired in an endless war. A war to disarm a dictator has become an open-ended occupation of a foreign country. This is not America. This is not who we are. It's time for us to stand up and tell George Bush that the government in this country is not based on the whims of one person, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
quote:I'll use the intelligence that I do receive to make good policy - I won't manipulate it to sell a bad policy. We don't need any more officials who tell the President what they want to hear. I will make the Director of National Intelligence an official with a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve - not someone who can be fired by the President. We need consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence agencies. We don't need politics. My test won't be loyalty - it will be the truth.
quote:And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.
I'm not really sure who he's kidding, at least if he's talking about launching these initiatives inside Iraq. A country exploding with civil war and hostile to outsiders is not one that will blithely permit diplomatic and humanitarian workers to do their jobs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
I question how effective any team of diplomats and humanitarian workers will be, though, when they are so shielded from the chaos surrounding them.
In my opinion-and this is part prediction-it would be akin to sending hurricane relief workers into a hurricane in some sort of giant sealed truck. They park the truck over the area they're working on, and the hurricane is gone while they work. They drive away, and it's back.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with all of the policies Obama has outlined so far, but wow, is his rhetorical style ever polished. The man knows how to give a rousing speech.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, I was astonished recently to read that Greenspan acknowledged that the Iraq war was at its heart about protecting and controlling the oil supply.
---
Edited to add: If humanitarian reasons for military use are the key, we should be now in Burma instead of Iraq. We have a chance there.
[edited to add: Not that I am in favor of rushing into Burma with our military! I do think that also would be a disaster, just on a different scale.]
Regarding the possibility of humanitarian aid to Iraq being effective, we will probably just have to disagree, Rakeesh. I am of the opinion that it will do some good, even if not turn the tide, and I do think it can be done more safely (in its necessarily limited way) than a military occupation such as we have now.
quote:If humanitarian reasons for military use are the key, we should be now in Burma instead of Iraq.
Or Darfur for that matter.
I also agree that humanitarian aid would be more effective than military aid in Iraq. After causing so much destruction, we should built something up before we leave. If it's destroyed after, well, that's sad, but not on America's shoulders.
Also, I really like what Obama is saying, and how he's saying it. It makes me very inclined to line up behind him, but I'd like to hear him talk more about some of the problems we're facing here at home.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
hes also offering the fireside webcats too.
IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think you may have an overly limited idea of what the diplomatic and humantarian initiatives could be. I don't know the specifics of what Senator Obama wants to kick off, but many of the things I could come up with would actually work better in controlled pockets amid the chaos of a civil war.
A sophisticated approach to the Iraq situation needs to actually engage the different groups there and try to get them to realize that they are going to be better off not blowing the crap out of everything. With the offensive U.S. presence removed, they would not have us as a scapegoat. With people chosen for their abilities rather than their political loyalty running programs designed to actually fix problems as opposed defer blame, we have a chance of doing this.
It would be very hard (much harder because of the past 4 years of idiotic policy) and could completely fail even if done perfectly. Success is not going to rest on anything we do, but on the choices made by the people in Iraq. That being said, I think that approach may represent one of our best chances. As opposed to the current policy, which seems to be primarily about playing for time so that the President can pass the mess he created onto someone else.
Do you have a better solution?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:we should built something up before we leave.
The problem seems to be building it. For example, we can't get the oil pipelines built because insurgents keep sabotaging them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regarding the possibility of humanitarian aid to Iraq being effective, we will probably just have to disagree, Rakeesh. I am of the opinion that it will do some good, even if not turn the tide, and I do think it can be done more safely (in its necessarily limited way) than a military occupation such as we have now.
I'm not suggesting this kind of plan would be totally ineffective on humanitarian or diplomatic grounds. I do question, though, just how effective such efforts would be in a region where corrupt police and militias in large measure hold the true power. The sad truth is, power grows from the barrel of a gun. When you kick aside the props of a democratic society, that's all there is. Too many of the props remain kicked aside, in my opinion, to begin relying on them alone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'd like to change the question above to Do you think that our current plan is less costly and/or has a better chance of success than this one?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You could very well be right. I certainly hope so, for two reasons: one, I believe it is almost inevitable that we will be facing a serious reduction in US forces there very soon, and two if it does work it would mean less blood and treasure expended which is always good.
quote:A sophisticated approach to the Iraq situation needs to actually engage the different groups there and try to get them to realize that they are going to be better off not blowing the crap out of everything. With the offensive U.S. presence removed, they would not have us as a scapegoat. With people chosen for their abilities rather than their political loyalty running programs designed to actually fix problems as opposed defer blame, we have a chance of doing this.
I'm skeptical of just how much success we'll have "choosing people for their abilities" to cure a corrupt system without some degree of force involved, is all. Some degree of sustained, long-term force. Or the threat of it. Hell, we have a hard time here rooting out corruption in government! I am also skeptical of just how much not-scapegoating will be done. It reminds me of a joke I play with my friends sometimes. "You can't blame me for that!" "I can blame you for anything I want!"
My better solution would be for the United States to actually get neck-deep in this situation, instead of tip-toeing around like we've been doing (in my opinion) ever since we got involved. More troops, more money, more supplies, more focus.
In my opinion, we went in there believing we could remake Iraq into a democratic society and continue to just run our other affairs on 'business as usual' setting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:More troops, more money, more supplies, more focus.
That seems near guaranteed to make things worse on every front. (edit) Domestically people won't go for it. Our already stretched military would be pushed even further. The Iraqis would go ballistic, creating even more insurgents and pushing away the idea of peaceful resolution. The international community is going to like us even less. And the other enemies we have out there are likely going to expand their hostile activites in light of the further weakened U.S. position. Why do you think this is a feasible course of action?
Iraq is not a problem that can be solved militarily. This is something that has been said since before the invasion. Why do people keep trying to act like it can?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In my opinion, we went in there believing we could remake Iraq into a democratic society and continue to just run our other affairs on 'business as usual' setting.
The problem was, (and I'm looking at it in the most charitable light possible) that we went into Iraq believing that a pro-Western democracy was what most Iraqis wanted. And they don't. Most Iraqis aren't pro-Western. And especially now, not pro-American.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iraq is not a problem that can be solved militarily. This is something that has been said since before the invasion. Why do people keep trying to act like it can?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Just because I listed all of those things and included 'troops' in it doesn't mean I meant for the money, focus, supplies, etc. to go to the troops exclusively. You asked what my better solution would be, and this is it: dramatically stepped up involvement on all fronts, military, financial, diplomatic, and political. I didn't say I thought it was possible or that it would work, since you're correct, domestically at the very least it wouldn't fly. Yes, it would not be cheap and it would be risky. In my opinion, abandoning Iraq to its own civil war (which is what I believe Obama's vaguely outlined plan amounts to) is more dangerous. This is war. There are no safe options.
But then again, I have little faith that Obama's proposals will be effective either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm somewhat less moved by Obama's speech largely because I'd expect variations of much of it, i.e. the astoundingly bad job the Bush administration has done, to come from all the candidates from both parties. But, it looks like Fred Thompson thinks Saddam definitely had WMDs and would have nukes by now if we hadn't invaded so maybe my version of "incredibly stupid things to believe" is different from other peoples.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, If what you are suggesting has no chance of ever being done, how is it an alternative to offer to real world plans?
---
Also, are you saying that Obama's plan is more dangerous than the one you offered or the current situation? I wasn't clear on that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm somewhat less moved by Obama's speech largely because I'd expect variations of much of it, i.e. the astoundingly bad job the Bush administration has done, to come from all the candidates from both parties.
But they haven't really. Even Obama's been too quiet on this, until now. The main things I wanted to hear from a candidate were his or her exact intentions towards our presence in Iraq and what the candidate plans to do about restoring checks, balances, and trust in our government. Aside from Ron Paul, none of them have been very forthcoming with the details.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Chris, that's sort of my point. Obama's speech only seems so good because the other candidates (and he, up till now) weren't doing what they should. It's hard for me to get worked up when a candidate does the base minimum that I expect them to, even if none of the rest of the field is.
But then again, most of the things he talked about in that speech were obvious in 2004, and George Bush still won the election, so again, my ideas of how the world should be don't line up well with how it is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Rakeesh, If what you are suggesting has no chance of ever being done, how is it an alternative to offer to real world plans?
---
Also, are you saying that Obama's plan is more dangerous than the one you offered or the current situation? I wasn't clear on that.
And how would you solve the fact that a lot of Iraqis don't want for themselves what we want for them.Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, It very much depends what you are defining what we want for them.
The Bush administration seemed to want/expect a bunch of lobotomized, miniture American flag waving brown people who would give us their oil. Obviously they don't want that.
I want them to be in a peaceful, stable country that has a respect for individual rights, preferably under some form of populist government. Many of them don't want that right now, but I believe that it is possible to get many of them to eventually realize that this is in their best interests.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I want them to be in a peaceful, stable country that has a respect for individual rights, preferably under some form of populist government. Many of them don't want that right now, but I believe that it is possible to get many of them to eventually realize that this is in their best interests.
How?
How are we going to erase tribal and factional loyalties and hatreds that have been in place for many generations? Religious beliefs that don't respect individual rights? How can we establish a populist government when most of the populace doesn't want a populist government?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a piece by George Will that asks some questions of Obama regarding his stated intentions on Iraq. They seem to me to be pretty good questions that Obama should be prepared to answer.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think any other outcome that I can think of (and I think those outcomes are much more likely) is most likely going be inherently unstable and will devolve back into civil war or Iran gulping up parts of Iran.
One possibility is that, with us drawing down, Iraq's civil war blooms into a full scale Persian(Shiite)-Arab (Sunni) conflict. I'm not sure if that would ultimately be a good or bad thing, as it would, most likely end up with the rest of the world actually doing something about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are we going to erase tribal and factional loyalties and hatreds that have been in place for many generations? Religious beliefs that don't respect individual rights? How can we establish a populist government when most of the populace doesn't want a populist government?
How did the U.S. do it?
Honestly, I don't know. It is an incredibly hard task and I honestly known very little about the culture or the people. I hope that there are enough people who, with the proper encouragement, are going to see this as a way toward stability that is far preferable to chaos, but I don't know.
I know that there are people out there that are afr more knowledgable and capable than I, even if none of them work for the Bush administration. The way I see it, when the alternative is just giving up, I want to give them a chance to try something that I believe has a definite possibility of working or at least making things somewhat better. I don't want George Bush's failures hurt us so completely without letting the competent try and fix it.
---
And ultimately, just giving up in 2009 isn't much more feasible than Rakeesh's super-ramp up strategy. It is not going to happen. The next president is going to try something. I'm hoping that we can influence them into doing something that has the potential to work.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. did it because enough of the colonists wanted it. It was a relatively homogeneous culture with (relatively) unoppressive relgious beliefs and a general idea of individual rights. We already had representative government at home and we were accustom to the idea of belonging to a nation instead of to a tribe.
And we brutally killed enough of the native americans who weren't sufficiently like us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but the systems of thought that undergirded the American revolution developed out of situations like you are describing in Iraq. People put under crappy situations are going to look for ways out of the problem and we've got a whole tradition of philosophy on why this way is good. I think you are overstating both the factors against this (e.g. the Iraqi populace didn't seem to have a problem with voting, even in the face of threats and hardship) and how hard it (potentially) would be to generate messages that would encourage people to think it might be a good idea.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those systems of thought took a while. The Enlightenment didn't happen overnight. And often, tribal societies had to be rather violently colonized before they could be nationalized. Scotland and Ireland for example.
I'm trying to think of an example where something like this has been done without violent oppression of one side or the other.
The Sunni/Shia oppression has been in place for a long time. It reminds me (horrifyingly) of the segregation in Rwanda. And the family loyalties remind me of the mafia.
I don't think that Iraqis are ready to consider themselves as Iraqis first, before identifying as members of their religious group or family or tribe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we brutally killed enough of the native americans who weren't sufficiently like us.
Well to be fair, before we started brutally killing them we had already wiped out about 75-85% of their number through disease when the Spanish came to North and South America.
Without the disease factor I am unconvinced that we could have simply walked all over them as we did.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, How do you reconcile the Iraqi people voting with your assertion that most of them don't want a populist government?
---
edit:
quote:Those systems of thought took a while. The Enlightenment didn't happen overnight.
Yes, but they were new and untested. We've had quite a bit of experience with them now and other countries (Iraq for example) have seen them in action. Also, we would theoretically have very skilled, knowledgible people trying to show how these things are ultiamtely for the best. It's a very different situation.
edit 2: I'm by no means saying that it wouldn't be very difficult and even if we do it right it still might not produce good results. However, I think you are much too pessimistic in claiming that it has no chance of working or producing a net positive effect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of them, if I recall correctly, voted for their own faction or their particular religious leader.
Voting is one thing; abiding by the goverment who won the election is another. I haven't seen any indication that they are doing this.
I know this sucks. I knew that it would suck. I think that the Iraqis might have eventually overthrown Hussein on their own. Which still would have meant civil war - we just wouldn't have caused it. And if the Shia majority won that civil was, they probably would have allied themselves with Iran.
Though Iran was moving toward more individual rights and a more representative government - before we invaded Iraq...
edit to respond to your edit: By "how", I also mean "how"? What would you do to accomplish this? As I said, the only method I have seen is colonization. I would be glad to hear another plan.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of them, if I recall correctly, voted for their own faction or their particular religious leader.
How would you know this?
You stated that most of them don't want a populist government. I don't see how that reconciles with them going to vote in the face of the threats and dangers associated with it.
---
How would I do it? I'd go back to college for about 8 years, then spend a decade or so to build up expertise in dealing with the region.
I'm not qualified to do this job. I tried to make that clear earlier. I'd imagine that it would involve hundreds of smaller actions dealing with this group and that, this region and that. I don't believe that most of the Iraqi people are fundamentally unreasonable. I believe that it is possible to convince them that they would be better off in a relatively stable country as opposed to one in a state of constant civil war. The specifics are far beyond me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know it, but I can guess based on voter turnout. Very few people in Sunni areas, for example, turned out to vote for the charter which would have given more power to the Shia.
And there are other examples. Voting in N. Ireland and Palestine. Voting is only one part of buying into a government. The more difficult part is actually agreeing to be ruled by the government that gets elected. I have seen no evidence of this.
I don't think the Iraqis are inherently unreasonable - at least no more than any of us. But faction and "us against them" is pretty firmly embedded in the human psyche. Changing that historically takes generations. I don't know how to change something that fundamental.
And they were living in a relatively stable country before we invaded them. It was stable because the majority was oppressed. And, frankly, if enough of them wanted stability more than they want to keep certain privileges for their own factions, they could have it by now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
