« Ventura Not Entering Minnesota Senate Race | Home | Election Central Morning Roundup »

Obama's Iraq Speech: I Will "End The War In Iraq Responsibly"

Barack Obama may be making major news this morning with a big speech on Iraq in Washington, D.C., and excerpts from the speech have just been released by his campaign.

The speech will be closely watched at least in part what he says about his proposed 16-month timetable. The just-released excerpts contain no mention of the specific timetable, so we'll have to wait until he delivers the speech to see what -- if anything -- he intends to say about it.

In the excerpts, however, Obama does re-commit himself to a broader foreign policy vision that is a clean break with that of George Bush and John McCain, both of whom say they see an extended presence in Iraq as central to American national security. Obama, by contrast, argues in the speech that this extended presence is harmful to our security and endangers our future in multiple ways. At the same time, he presses his case for more aggressive engagement in Afghanistan. Key excerpt:

This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe...

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Full excerpts after the jump.

Late Update: I should reiterate that Obama did re-commit himself to the 16-month timetable in his New York Times Op ed yesterday.

"Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

"I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction -to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead.

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

***

"In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

"Senator McCain said - just months ago - that 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

***

"Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."


31 Comments

| Leave a comment

Events on the ground in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi government's demand for a withdrawal timetable, certainly seem to be supporting Obama's approach to these conflicts.

What worries me more is John McCain. Tomorrow, apparently, he's going to address the NAACP. African Americans have long been one of the linchpins of the Democratic coalition, and if Republicans could woo them away, it would be a fatal blow to us. Could this be this right year? Could the legendarily silver-tongued McCain be the right candidate?

oh, I fear he can sway the AA vote away from that illiterate Barack...

You're worried that it might be the Republicans' year for stealing away black voters? Huh?

Ah crap, youre joking. I think my icon is rubbing off on me.

As an AA (not speaking for all of us), I'm predicting 90%+ Obama. No worries. That tongue of his was never silver in my eyes when it comes to AA issues. More fork-like, if you ask me. I won't say that he is racist, but I don't recall any concern for my community before he needed our votes.

Actually, Obama hasnt done a whole lot specifically for, to, black americans. And im perfectly fine with it. I much prefer my politicians to deal with everyone as a whole(aside from the few speeches where he spoke about Black americans specifically, fathers, etc etc) than pick us out of the crowd as if we are "special".
Just do your job brotha, and I am with you.

I dont have that "me, me, me, me" problem so many voters have.

um, what?

i think you and the new yorker should refrain from using sarcasm going forward. not really your strength.

user-pic

http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/obama-on-iraq-and-afghanistan-friendly.html


Juan Cole's take:

Obama's editorial is thoughtful and far more sensible than anything we are hearing from the White House or McCain, and I agree with most of it. But I have one quibble and one major critique. The quibble is that Obama talks about leaving a small American force in Iraq after most of the troops are withdrawn, to continue to fight "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia."

That suggestion is not plausible for several reasons. If there is only a small force in the country, who will rescue them if their helicopter gets shot down or they are ambushed and besieged? Then, how would a small American unit be any good against a terrorist organization operating in remote parts of Sunni Iraq? They don't know Arabic, can't hope for really good intelligence from locals, etc. Wouldn't it be more efficient to let the Special Police Commandos of the Iraqi Interior Ministry take care of this sort of thing? By the way, no one seems to be calling themselves "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" any more on the jihadi bulletin boards. The main fundamentalist vigilante group is the "Islamic State of Iraq."

I'm against leaving any residual troops. Juan Cole explains it so well.

user-pic

oops - I messed up the tags. the second paragraph should be in italics too.

I disagree with you there Bess. A small residual US military force would play an extension role to the Iraqi military which is being currently trained to assume responsibility after the coalition force leaves.They will participate in "embedded" roles along the Iraqi forces so the issue of the American forces not speaking arabic is null.Such as force would also help secure US interests there.

Juan Cole doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

As I said yesterday, it will be a brilliant speech and I agree totally with his five-point strategy.It will make America safer, as the war in Iraq has not only diminished our global standing but also lost us allies along the way.We have an to engage responsibly towards global exigencies in a way that emphasises our key International obligation as a permanet member of the Un security council.Obama recognises that the global security climate has changed and that military force on its own does not mean success in combating global threats.Go Obama!

Why is it so hard to find out when the speech will actually be ON? The media does such a pathetic job at this, although I can't manage to find any information on it on Obama's site either. I'd like to watch it live if possible.

Did anyone else notice that our dickhead President is going to preempt Obama's Iraq speech with one of his rare press conferences?

The page is reporting it. God, I hate Bush...is that politically correct?

http://thepage.time.com/

Not much longer Chris... not.. much.. longer. Ugh.

I just find it funny that a "major news event" is Mr. Obama simply repeating his long-held stance regarding his strategy for withdrawal from Iraq, while relying (duh) on his army for the tactics. It really couldn't be plainer. The average American's inability to process such simple stuff is occasionally funny, but always embarrassing.

Well, people haven't been paying attention to the campaign in large part. Unlike us TPM junkies.

Why do you think candidates recite the same rote speech stop after stop after stop...

Now that people are starting to pay attention, McCain exploited a reference Obama made to "refining" his Iraq policy and muddied the waters about his steadfastness on this matter. As a result, Obama has to go on out and repeat what he's said all along: that he will end this war.

This time though is somewhat different. Obama will frame the war in Iraq as a smaller component of an overall National Security strategy that will place Iraq in context of shifting focus from that dead ended conflict to the burgeoning threat posed by Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If he's able to include Afghanistan and Pakistan in the narrative going forward, he will be in a stronger place come the general election.

McCain wants to limit the National Security debate to Iraq, it suits his interests because he can harp about how his surge strategy worked.

Obama wins the argument is the debate is expanded to include the larger Middle East, because he can focus on how our continued presence in Iraq undermines our chances of defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Go 'Bama!

He may be a d@#$-head but he is a masterful pol for taking the spotlight from Obama. If only he had a green background to work in front of.

I don't know how "masterful" it is. It frankly is predictable.

Obama will likely wait until the President finishes whatever horseshit he's peddling before beginning his remarks.

Obama easily wins the debate about Iraq and the contrast with South Korea is a perfect one to make. I also think it's key -- and Obama is doing this very well here -- to pivot the debate to Afghanistan. For those who fear that somehow Obama isn't "tough" enough vs. McSame, it's Obama who is going to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, and McSame who's going to continue to let them reassert themselves. The fact is that Obama is tougher in the so-called "war on terror" and this is a way to hit this message hard.

I agree with your main assertion, but I don't think resorting to demeaning the IQ of a huge slice of Americans is the right approach in explaining your view if you want to appeal to the more rational liberals on this board. Take into account the people that just see all politics as the same old rhetoric. It's ingrained in them and so no matter what a candidate says or does, they're not going to be inspired or moved, or even believe a word thats being said (if they're even tuning in at all). I hear this a lot from older folks.. I do think there is a generational gap at play in this though.

I do find it fascinating that our generation tends to view the United States and Americans from an internationalist perspective as opposed to nationalist one.. I think it's wonderful progress.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-fisa.html

"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: “Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."

Voted for cloture, then voted for the bill that contains the immunity he "unequivocally oppose[d]".

I believe that he wants us to believe that he will do as he says. After FISA, I don't believe that what he says is an accurate indication of how he'll act. Sad.

user-pic

Boring....

Gee, Dee Dee, what scintillating repartee! Why, you sure showed me!

It's a shame that the destruction of the 4th amendment is boring to you. Perhaps this kind of thinking is why Obama feels he won't take any kind of political damage from supporting such a thing.

All of the other Obama "flip-flops" are either created out of whole cloth or distorted beyond recognition by the MSM, but the FISA vote isn't. When I joined the Army, we took an oath, not to defend the country, not to defend a political party, but to defend the Constitution. Obama took a similar oath when he was sworn in as senator. One of us doesn't think too highly of his oath, I'll leave it to you to figure out which one.

It seems everyone here was caught up in Obama fever. Whatever he says is right. Just to see how dishonest and flip-flopping read

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020997.php

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/15/obama-purges-site-of-surge-criticism/

The surge didn't work. Diplomacy did. Unfortunately, we already lost. Not poltically correct to say? Tough. We had a goal: a Democracy like ours in Iraq. Chances of that happening anytime soon, through our efforts or not? Not very likely.

The violence has not ended but subsided to a lower level, in part because of our agreements, but also in part because those who sought to divide Iraq along sectarian lines succeeded.

They succeeded in tearing Iraq apart, and the best we can do is piece back together this failed state with chewing gum and bailing wire, and back away with our hands out hoping it holds together.

Beyond that, we're not going to see real victory. We were defeated, and we were defeated because of lousy policy.

user-pic

Michelle Malkin and Powerline? That all you've got?

I think it's safe to say that everyone who considers those two reliable sources was already anti-Obama before this election started.

Looks like Obama is having a helluva time with the teleprompters today - he's looking back and forth every couple of words and often repeating himself like he's waiting for the prompter to catch up or something.

You're sure you're not talking about John "The Lawn Sprinkler" McCain there?

The MSM will probably say he's flip flopping. It seems that everytime he reiterates his position, he's accused of making an "adjustment" to his stance to placate middle America.

user-pic

Obama should end this war as it does not belong to him or America. It belongs to the republican party.This war was never over WMD's, Freedom or Liberation. It certainly was not about terrorism. It was about a permanent GOP hegemony. It was GWB's " look what a bad ass I am " war.
As Glen Greenwald wrote a few years ago: this is the GOP's baby. They controlled all aspects of government at its inception and they steamrolled over all dissent. Now it ain't going so well. So?
Fight it forever as a win is implausible. When this war is finally over it will be judgment time for its authors, the GOP. That is why this war must be fought forever. To avoid that judgment and to a lesser extent to blame it's failure on those in office at the time of it's implosion. This is the republican's war and it is the future of the GOP they are considering in its prolongation. Not the USA, me you or any freedom.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address