Obama's Very Solid Column in NYT on Iraq Withdrawal Plan
I think today's column by B. Obama in the New York Times is very solid, hits all the right points, is strong and committed. I particularly like the emphasis on Iraqi's own government's desire for American troop withdrawal and correctly calling this a great opportunity. I also like and salute his statement that he will make it clear we do not want permanent bases in Iraq. This is of outmost importance in ending the violence and allowing us a honorable withdrawal.
All in all a winner. Had he done this on FISA...
All in all a winner. Had he done this on FISA...
Advertisement
No link?
July 14, 2008 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html
July 14, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, this?
http://blogobama08.blogspot.com/2008/07/monday-nytimes-op-ed-barack-obama-my.html
July 14, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very solid? He has in effect told the public that he intends to move the theater of war from Iraq to Afghanistan. In other words, the same play, different stage.
July 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what, pray tell, is the problem with refocusing on Afghanistan? The problem was moving the play to a different stage that had nothing to do with 9/11.
As much as war sucks, I do recall there were some people who blew up a couple tall buildings in NY, and they were operating with impunity in Afghanistan. And our efforts to stabilize that area have been compromised by the focus on Iraq.
I may be a liberal, but I don't have any problem responding to violence initiated against our nation.
July 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well first of all, neither the Taliban nor Afghans brought down the WTC. Secondly, considering the fact that Al Qaeda is a stateless entity and can move a hell of a lot faster than the U.S. army, sending troops to Afghanistan is a losing proposition - ask the Soviets, if you don't believe me.
Thirdly, we've spent over 1 trillion dollars in Iraq, where do you think we're going to get the money to fight another war in Afghanistan with another enemy that fades in and out of the civilian population and for the most part consists of civilians operating in populated areas? How many more weddings do you think we can bomb before the population actively begins to resist our occupation of their country?
Lastly, Obama has promised to send two combat brigades to Afghanistan which when you count up the real numbers translates to 50/60,000 troops. He's not ending the war, he's moving the war.
July 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course al-Qaeda is a stateless entity. But the Taliban gave them safe haven and the ability to develop an organization with the capability and luxury to launch sophisticated, large-scale attacks. Not to mention the fact that the Taliban are the sort of fundamentalist nuts that are at the root of this particular terrorist problem.
Basically, you've got a group that depends on using Afghanistan and western Pakistan as a safe haven. And a nation-state like the US cannot simply decide it's too difficult to bring the OBL's of the world to justice. While it may very well be impossible to 'eliminate' terrorism, the only other option is to make it so difficult for them to organize and plan as to render them a relative 'nuisance' as opposed to a threat.
The war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and their Taliban enablers was never finished in the first place. The world was not against us in Afghanistan, and, indeed, whole-heartedly supported our right to pursue those who attacked us. We went wrong when that legitimate effort was hijacked to pursue a different agenda.
As someone else posted about the book "Three Cups of Tea," eliminating this sort of threat is all about helping the poor and ignorant build real lives, vastly reducing the pool of unfocused, angry, and susceptible people who are looking for a purpose and focus.
I understand the Soviets' difficulties in Afghanistan (greatly exacerbated by the US), just I understand the British experience in 'Iraq.' And, of course, there's going to be tension when the US has to work in the tribal regions of Pakistan. It's a dirty business...but sitting back and letting al-Qaeda reconstitute, which we've effectively done by turning our focus away from Afghanistan, is not a responsible position in an age of suitcase nukes, etc. I'm not an alarmist, by any means, but a president is charged with doing everything possible to prevent that scenario from coming to pass, and it's a multilayered effort. And part of that effort is denying the enemy the luxury of being able to train, plan, and operate with impunity.
July 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have plenty of poor and ignorant at home who need to build real lives. We're dead last in the industrial world in healthcare and investment in domestic infrastructure. We're rotting from within. Time for a drastic change in course. It won't happen, but it must.
July 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah...But unfortunately you don't get to pick when it's convenient for people to declare war on you.
For what's wrong in this country, I favor the idea of government stimulus in terms of public works, etc., a la FDR. It entails deficit spending, but pays off.
However, I don't see Afghanistan/Taliban/al-Qaeda as a luxury of choice. We have to figure out how to do both at the same time.
July 14, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I finally find myself in agreement with you, Dimitry.
It's a sensible approach. Indeed, it's so sensible as to seem entirely self-evident. But obviously common sense has not been the currency of the realm lately.
The real nut in all of this is whether the real agenda was always to establish control over oil reserves. This is where I would assume McCain's idea of a 'permanent' presence in Iraq is really directed.
July 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a very good op-ed, and kudos to NYT for putting in there. Obama is having a hard time getting his message across. More on that in a minute.
But first: Afghanistan
I despise war. But it isn't the time for peace yet, because the human race has not grown up.
Should we be diverting troops in Afghanistan? Or should we be getting the hell out of a country that has been ravaged by the Soviets, the Taliban and now us? I'd personally like to see us get out, but not sure what the result would be.
However, from Obama's point of view, he has to get elected, and saying a Kucinich-like against-all-wars stance would never do it. Not in this country today. Afghanistan is where Bush took his eyes off the prize and diverted us into this senseless and destructive tragedy in Iraq. So that's where Obama is going to return us. It may be in part symbolic, since Al Qaeda is nationless and it's thought that OBL is in Pakistan anyway. But I give Obama credit. I think he has to do it this way - but what do I know? Just my uninformed opinion.
However, on the subject and Obama's message being intentionally drowned out, here's something I experienced just minutes ago:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/all-bias-all-bull-the-cnn-prom.php
Please read, comment, rec. It's what I desperately want to fight against.
July 14, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink