Barack Obama's Appalling Position On IRAQ

[Orwellian_Ghost]

BARACK OBAMA: THE AMERICAN MOMENT

“I believe that the single most important job of any President is to protect the American
people. And I am equally convinced that doing that job effectively in the 21st century will
require a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national
security – a vision that draws from the lessons of the past, but is not bound by outdated
thinking. In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably
linked to the security of all people.”



1. ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ

“Thus far, the Iraqi government has made very little progress . . in part because the
president has refused time and again to tell the Iraqi government that we will not be there
forever. The president’s escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the
violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties – though the experience so
far is not encouraging. But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased
withdrawal can.”

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq before the American invasion, at a time when
most politicians and voters supported it. His courageous stand, detailed in a speech in
Chicago in October 2002, showed vision, foresight, and judgment. Today, Obama, a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is one of the leading voices on Iraq
policy. His legislation to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq, S.433, helped form
the basis of the bill passed by the Senate.

Obama’s plan:

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment. Commences a phased redeployment
of U.S. troops from Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat
brigades by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study
Group. This responsible redeployment will be both substantial and gradual and will be
planned and implemented by military commanders. The plan makes clear that Congress
believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other
points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection,
training of Iraqi security forces, and counter-terrorism operations.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress. (Sound Familiar?)

The Obama plan sets 13 benchmarks for
Iraqi security, political accommodation, and economic progress(This is the key and that economic progress must comport with US demands). If these are met,
Congress could pause the phased redeployment for a limited period. Their purpose is to
encourage Iraqis to make the tough political compromises necessary to end the civil war (It's not a Civil War it's an illegal occupation. Sound familiar?)
and avert a worst-case scenario. (Worse than what?)

Emphasizes Regional Diplomacy.

Launches a comprehensive regional and international
diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political
settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe (There isn't already a humanitarian catastrophe CAUSED BY US FORCES!?) and regional conflict. Recommends the president appoint a special envoy for
Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the president submit a plan
to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:5EM_LtwSTu4J:my.barackobama.com/page/-/pdf/Fact%2BSheet%2BForeign%2BPolicy.pdf+obama+the+american+moment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us">LINK

Obama sees virtue in a prolonged American military presence:

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.

"At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."

If the U.S. troops are to remain in place in order to "prevent" Iraqis, in and out of government, from taking certain actions, then the Americans are meant to be a classic occupying force - the real power in Iraq.

"…we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency."

- Barack Obama

Do remember now that Obama has voted all along for continued war funding of this illegal occupation as well as OPPOSED John Murtha's call for US withdrawal from Iraq.

This matters.

(Paranthetical comments mine)

[kid a]

1. Clintons appalling position on IRAQ: YES

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. This isn't about Clinton

Her position is in fact worse.

What do you have to say about Obama's position?

In the OP I've only scratched the surface of how appaling and hypocritical is his stance. Many of his blind followers are unaware of what he actually says.

What are your "hopes" for the people of Iraq?

[totodeinhere]

24. Your post wasn't about Clinton,

but since it is Clinton and Obama who are fighting tooth and nail for the nomination, isn't it legitimate to compare their positions on Iraq?

Both could have stronger positions on Iraq, but if you are going to criticize only Obama's position it makes it look like it's a pro Clinton post.

[nonconformist]

54. Not necessarily, because if he gets the nomination

You can't deflect "but Clinton..." every time something bad is said about Obama. You're going to have to actually discuss what he did/said/is accused of.

[Blue State Bandit]

30. At the time he took this position, it was the most responsible

course of action. Do you actually think that Obama supporters have no idea where he stands, positions he has taken, or were born yesterday?

Do you honestly believe that a position thought to be a responsible course of action BEFORE THE SURGE, and held by most democrats with military experience, or ex-military opponents of the war at the time, will persuade anybody to change their minds?

Give me a break.

On edit;

This is a response to the OP.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

36. It is extremely irresponsible

to the highest degree.

It is in direct contradiction to The Constitution and International Law.

The hawkish Democrat John Murtha contradicts Obama's position here and Obama dissented from Murtha's position of troop withdrawal.

Should I dig up the quotes? I've got them.

And yes I'm quite certain that many many Obama supporters have ZERO idea of most of his positions and in fact are deluded in their opinions.

I say that not just based on what I've seen on the internet, though that confirms this, but also in the several dozen conversations I've had on the streets with Obama supporters including rallies.

Most people are absolutely clueless and are just cheerleading a walking slogan.

I'd be glad to walk with you a do a survey.

The position you speak of as "responsible" was rationale for a violation of international law.

Do you support the illegal occupation of Iraq?

Still waiting for a straight answer on that one.

[Blue State Bandit]

39. No need to dig your own grave, I've already done it for you...

Rep. John Murtha

Blogging on HuffPost

Posted 1/23/07

My Testimony on Iraq to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, "We are pursuing the wrong war."


Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a "victory in Iraq." I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/my-testimony-on-iraq-to-t_b_39387.html

[Orwellian_Ghost]

50. Please

Do you support continued occupation of Iraq?

What's your position?

Easy to just support A,B or C from the armchair but what will you do as the occupation continues or do you see it ending in the near future with an Obama presidency?

That's what I thought.

The graves that you flippantly refer to are not abstract.

Suffer the children of Iraq.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. what he says insn't appalling, its what the OP interjects

The direct quotes of Obama aren't appalling.

The OP writer tries to attribute thoughts, meaning or ideas to Obama that he did not say.

What is appalling is Clinton's vote to start this war.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. McCain, Clinton or Obama.

One will be president. Guaranteed.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

48. Yep

and the occupation will grind on.

Too bad for the people of Iraq.

[OzarkDem]

81. Obama supporters won't discuss his positions

They need to rethink their support for a candidate who they can only defend by attacking Hillary Clinton.

Is it really enough to support an unknown candidate just because they are not Hillary Clinton?

[Hobarticus]

87. Changing the subject doesn't change what Obama has said and done...

[fenriswolf]

2. how many votes would he lose if he stated

everyone out now? being pragmatic gives him republican votes who dont see the strategy as cut and run, it gives him good ground on the left side as a massive de escalation.

plus how much you wanna bet his strategy changes come december?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

17. I'll take that bet

Seriously.

I will layout quite specifically what I think will happen in Iraq with an Obama presidency.

You do the same.

If your projection is anything close to complete US withdrawal in one year (should be in months) I will give you long odds that you are wrong.

I would be glad to lose.

Obama will continue this illegal occupation.

[fenriswolf]

21. well just have to wait and see

honestly the primary is way to freaking long im tired of playing guessing games.

[OzarkDem]

77. Better to curry favor with the right wing than rescue our country from disaster

If Obama is elected he will have a Dem Congress to work with. If he can't get us out of Iraq with that much support then he's either incompetent or lying.

[respublicus]

80. Yeah, that's why he wants to bomb Pakistan. The people are tired of war. Obama not.

[jody]

3. BO is a political chameleon. n/t

[rodeodance]

73. Savior's offering up a plate of Redemption can do that

sarcasm

[Yael]

4. Clinton's appalling position on IRAN: YES

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. Obama on Iran

This is not a Clinton thread as her position is slightly worse than Obama's. Can you not address the topic?

But Obama's position on Iran is pretty appalling too as you must know as a politically oriented person. Right?

Do you need that information? Obama has already alluded to surgical strikes against Iran if they "don't comply."

He and Hillary are both rather hawkish against oil rich nations that begin with the letter 'I'.

Sound familiar?

[Yael]

10. Her campaign is OVER. Done, finished, off the cliff OVER.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. This wasn't about HER

it's about HIM.

Why do you run away from that?

Do you support continued presence of US troops in illegally occupied Iraq?

[Blue State Bandit]

45. You slam Obama, then slam Hillary, so I have to ask...

Did you mistake this site for FreeRepublic or something?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

47. Your comment

is slanderous.

[Blue State Bandit]

65. Your insinuation is insulting.

As a democrat, my question to you is no more slanderous that you asking me if I'm for an illegal occupation.

[Straight Shooter]

52. You do not know OG, and you must not be familiar with OG's positions.

Or you would not ask such a thing.

[Blue State Bandit]

62. Enlighten me.

Exlpain to me why every post I have come across in recent days by OG have been clumsy attempts to attack Obama, both covertly and overtly?

[jillan]

12. And we will never know how Obama would have voted because he DIDN'T

bother to show up that day.

There were several votes on Iraq and Iran that day.

But he had no problem making it to the debate that evening.

[jackson_dem]

29. The vote came up at the debate but Obama conspicously said nothing

Later, after seeing the damage to Hillary and the traction Edwards got from denouncing it, he would flip flop and would call it "a vote for war." If it was a vote for war why didn't he bother to show up?

Obama in the IRG: 1) for designating a terrorist group and cosponsored a bill to do that 2) voted present on Kyl-Lieberman (no floor statement, no press released, nothing at the debate, nothing on the stump) 3) Became against it when it was politically expedient

This is another example of him saying or doing anything to win. His rhetoric doesn't match his actions.

[Cameron27]

83. That's right,

and the way he used Kyl-Lieberman to attack Clinton was the first time that Obama started to sour on me. It's only gotten worse the more I've gotten to know him.

[OzarkDem]

78. Link?

Sayin' it don't make it so.

[paparush]

6. Don't any of these Fucking Pols (tm) know that they swear to defend THE CONSTITUTION!

NOT the American people

NOT the Homeland.

For fuck's sake.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. Hurrah

Somebody picked that up.

I'm surprised others didn't notice that.

Should I be?

Hat's off to you.

[thunder rising]

8. FU! I've had enough of the baiting of Barack to say we must withdraw on day one.

We can't. Period. We would be breaking international law and/or the Geneva Conventions (remember them?).

We can set aggressive benchmarks and withdraw when the local government has not been able to achieve something like stability.

Ever think that the Iraq government would also like to the US go bankrupt? Do you think for an instance they are really "OK Arabs". You know just like Uncle Tom. They are as ideologically driven as anybody else in that region. Consider their question, "How do we get the US out of here?" The answer is simple, bankrupt them.

[UALRBSofL]

11. Hurrah with that kind of position on Iraq

He'll be a one term president.

[UALRBSofL]

14. I need to bookmark this for future reference

Thanks for posting. BTW, this posturing on the occupation of Iraq isn't very progressive, it's more centrist.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Hello?

Did you mean the US INSTALLED PUPPET GOVERNMENT?

Please.

Just about every aspect of your post is mistaken in it's practice and implication.

I suggest you re-read the Geneva convention or read it period.

What you are re-gurgitating is the same imperial dogma that has been in place for decades.

Who's "WE?"

The US has no rights whatsoever UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to set any benchmarks.

It is an illegal occupation by a foreign force and must be removed immediately. All international law is being violated by the US presence and The Constitution upon which The President swears an oath is bound to this.

The money is in the pipeline.

The US troops want to get out of there.

The American people want the troops out.

MOST importantly The Iraqi people by over 80% want US forces OUT NOW!

All else is just continued rationale for an illegal occupation and continued internal strife, displacement and mass slaughter.

Obama perpetuates that as does Hillary. They are both voting for war funding and both promise continued occupation. This is morally wrong.

[K Gardner]

16. You're really milking that one policy paper you quoted here yesterday for all its worth, aren't

you? Is this the 4th or 5th thread you've started on the same topic in the past 24 hrs, each a bit more hyperbolic than the last.

You really think anyone is going to switch to Hillary on THE IRAQ ISSUE?? Seriously?

[UALRBSofL]

18. I don't think it's about Hillary any more

Her firewall is gone and now it's open season on Obama.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Wrong

You obviously didn't click on the link.

You are being deceitful.

The link is straight to Obama policy. 6 page report.

Why won't you comment on that? Why the evasive tactics?

What's up with the knee-jerk Hillary stuff? Look at the thread.

Avoidance.

Do you support this illegal occupation of Iraq?

[UALRBSofL]

23. I did look at the link and it spells out his centrist plan

On withdrawal from Iraq. Thanks again for the link.

[K Gardner]

25. OG.. I've read his policy. I commented and responded to you a couple days ago in the FIRST

thread you posted about this and gave you my opinion. Deceitful? Hardly. Avoidance? No.

I'm rather confused tho as to what you're hoping to accomplish here by tearing down Obama.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. The truth

What are your insights/thoughts on Obama's position towards the US occupation of Iraq?

It's that simple.

Do you agree with what is stated in the OP?

It's all straight from Obama.

[calmblueocean]

20. Obama ain't Kucinich, but I knew that already.

I'm not crazy about the slowness of his exit plan, but I think if it were as precipitous as Kucinich's, he'd probably be somewhere closer to Kucinich in the polls.

[OzarkDem]

79. How will Obama pay for it?

Unless he tells us that, how can he expect us to buy into it.

Political expediency is a non-issue. If elected, he'll (hopefully) be a Democratic president with a Dem Congress. What's the problem?

[Johnny__Motown]

22. You confuse combat forces with security forces. No combat forces means no war

[Orwellian_Ghost]

28. Really?

Tell Central America 1970-1990 that.

Reagan never committed "combat troops" and the war raged on with many many thousands of deaths.

And now we are in the territory of mercs which go beneath the radar.

Look into this.

The actual number of US forces that are technically "combat brigades" is smaller than you think.

I'm not confusing anything it is those who confuse Obama's plans towards Iraq as an end to the occupation- IT NEVER WAS A WAR- who are confused.

Define war however you want but Obama's plan is little comfort to the people of Iraq.

The occupation is illegal don't you agree?

[ProSense]

31. What are you debating, that Hillary has a better plan? McCain? n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

40. Why

do people always resort to diversions?

Please address the OP.

Hillary's plan stinks. McCains is reprehensible. Obama's is lousy.

All of them are in direct violation of international law.

Is this the only defense of Obama's position on Iraq?

What does that say?

[ProSense]

42. Nothing to address, except the word appalling is in your title and has nothing to do with Obama. n/t

[balantz]

26. K&R

[Blue State Bandit]

34. Phased re-deployment, as a matter of fact...

it the exact phrase used by Jack Murtha. He also called for an "over the horizon" quick reaction force to do exactly what Senator Obama states here.

I think you need to give up you quest to hit on out of the park, your just swinging at the breeze.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

38. Tired sports metaphors

Following is the transcript of a speech by conservative Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania on November 17. Murtha is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriation Committee's defense panel.

....

"The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region….

"I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think only seven percent .

"I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted - this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times - over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy - immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."

"All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free - free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process."

http://www.alternet.org/story/28432/

Do you support Obama's position on Iraq?

What do you say about Obama's statement on Fallujah?

[Blue State Bandit]

44. Again, Murtha on Phased Redeployment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/my-testimony-on-iraq-to-t_b_39387.html

To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, "We are pursuing the wrong war."


Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a "victory in Iraq." I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Posted January 23, 2007

[boppers]

35. To my anti-war friends:

Yes, Obama will keep us in Iraq.

However, Clinton met with Code Pink. And lied TO THEIR FACES about having read up on all the perspectives on the IWR. She didn't read the NIE, and lied to them, face to face, without a hint of shame.

Lying to corporate lobbyists I can handle.
Spinning perceptions I can handle.

Lying in the faces of Code Pink? That's just beyond words.



edit: minor typo

[UALRBSofL]

41. apparently boppers is defending this

by trying to deflect it onto Hillary. As I said before it's not about Hillary any more, her firewall is gone. So it's open season on Obama.

[boppers]

51. Sorry, wasn't aware she was out yet.

Anyways, yes, Obama IS NOT an anti-war candidate. He proposes *increasing* our military by 100,000 soldiers. To what end is unknown.

If you're looking for a "peace at all costs" candidate, Obama ain't your guy. Neither is Hillary.

[Blue State Bandit]

63. To provide for our security

in light of military build-ups by Russia and China. And just because Bush will be gone, the ill will he created will not magical dissipate.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

37. Are people who support Obama really defending this?

Are they really okay with this?

This does not trouble them, give them pause, for even a moment?

That is very disturbing.

[Blue State Bandit]

43. A unilateral withdraw "overnight", which I can only ascertain

is what you are suggesting we do by your stated opposition to "phased redeployment will not only cause mass casualties to our retreating troops, but leave Iraq stockpiled with US military hardware that would be impossible to execrate from Iraq in such a short window of time.

Beyond exposing our retreating flanks to an energized enemy, we will leave a country, and a region in flames that will eventually come back to haunt us post haste.

?

On edit:

It take it back, you just don't know any better.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

46. You are wrong

No need to take it back. Your vulgar comment is duly noted.

What you have "ascertained" is a complete misreading of what is being said based on your obviously defensive posture.

The manner and method of troop withdrawal has already been clearly spelled out and of course it would take months. But perhaps you haven't researched this and don't know any better.

As for the "country in flames bit" and the paternal need for the US to remain that is A BIG LIE. No need to take my word for it just ask the Iraqi people. Why is it that over 80% say US troops go. The civil war bit is also A BIG LIE used to rationalize continued US occupation. That is commomn knowledge.

Who's "WE?"

And you could be the first to answer:

Do you support the illegal US occupation of Iraq?

It's rather dubious to contend that the one who started the flames should remain and has any credibilitiy in this region where there are those flames.

[Blue State Bandit]

56. Did not and do not support Illegal occupation.

The manner and method of troop withdrawal has already been clearly spelled out and of course it would take months. But perhaps you haven't researched this and don't know any better.

This is called Phased Redeployment.

"Over the horizon reaction forces" need not necessarily be in Iraq, but in Kuwait or Turkey.

But perhaps you haven't researched this and don't know any better.

As a matter of fact I could say the same thing about you.

These guys are essentially jockeying for some kind of power, some kind of a carve up at the political table. It's very (INAUDIBLE). But then the military action is really just an extension of the politics.

They believe that by putting military pressure on, that gives them a stake that they didn't otherwise have in the military game. Unlike the al Qaeda extremists, unlike the Islamic militants, they are not fighting a global holy war. They are not fighting to create an Islamic state, like these Sunnis on one side and the extremist Shia on the other.

They want largely a secular society. They've said they're prepared to host U.S. bases, akin to Germany and Japan. Let's normalize relations. We share common enemies, Iran and al Qaeda. How did we end up on the wrong side of this?

Micheal Ware interviews Iraqi Sunni Insurgents
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/04/sitroom.02.html

Also read:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1179362,00.html

It seems that, at the time, there was credible support, from the Iraqi Insurgents for US military bases In Iraq, provided they were outside of populated areas. And this would have been possible thru the congress, and would have passed constitutional muster.

I must repeat, AT THE TIME.

As I have been trying to tell you from the beginning, time changes options and perspectives.

This is the nature of war, and it seems that you have no clue what impact the illegal occupation of Iraq has had on the geo-political map.

You might want to go back and do you homework, their will be a test tomorrow.

[UALRBSofL]

49. This was the same rhetoric that was used by the GOP

when we retreated from Vietnam. Basically, his post is a right wing talking point. But, we see how well south vietnam turned out in spite of our retraction from there. As a matter of fact, as a progressive I totally disagree with this plan of action.

[boppers]

53. Do you have an alternative?

Another, more peaceful, democratic candidate, viable in the GE?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

55. Vote your conscious

n/t

[ErnestoG]

59. That's CONSCIENCE.

[ErnestoG]

60. Defending Hillary's pro war vote? Never.

[stillcool]

64. do you expect...

a complete withdrawal from the region?

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition


Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

The Empire of Bases,
The Spoils of War
excerpted from the book
The Sorrows of Empire
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
by Chalmers Johnson
Henry Holt, 2004, paper
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chalmers_Johnson/Empire_Bases_TSOE.html

[Orwellian_Ghost]

67. Dreamy thought eh?

Of course I do not expect any such thing particularly given the current situation with global energy supplies.

That seems to have been left out of the Obama platform, smartly so, the minor bit about the US being in the region for oil.

Projections suggest that within 20 years the world will be getting about 60% of it's oil from the region. Possibly more.

In any case Obama is essentially using rhetoric strikingly similar to the Bush admin when talking about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people and how The Iraqi government, US installed let's not forget, has to "step up to the plate" and take responsibility. Personally I find it rather sickening when I hear those words. Been hearing them for too long.

[stillcool]

69. I would expect nothing different...

..that is if he is a viable candidate for the Presidency. My dreamy thoughts are that like the syndicate crime families, all these players will have little upstate NY sit down, and work out their turfs. For a while anyway.

[Recursion]

86. I'm missing the outrage

He wants a one-year withdrawal schedule. Having done logistics in the military, I think that's about the most reasonable time-frame.

[stillcool]

57. here's something else...

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

FPIF Commentary
Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008
Editor: John Feffer
Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org

Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.

As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.

The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues

While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
read more.....http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[ErnestoG]

58. Karl Rove....is that you??

[LadyVT]

61. Thank you for this information.

[Blue State Bandit]

66. OG, since you obviously believe that you know more that most...

as you inelegantly put it...

But perhaps you haven't researched this and don't know any better.

Go read Sun-Tzu, go read Clausewitz "On War", go read War in the Shadows, The Guerrilla In History, and then tell me that I don't know any better.

[sloppyjoe25s]

68. he is SO DEVOID of substance

NOT!

[AtomicKitten]

70. The only appalling position all along re: Iraq belongs to Hillary Clinton.

[lxlxlxl]

74. ...x...

Your country doesn't care about Iraqis at all. Your country doesn't even care about its own citizens.
Americans didn't care about the first Gulf War, the Sanction years which decimated millions of lives, and this disastrous occupation. To single out Obama or his supporters is being blankly disingenuous.

You seem educated enough to understand this, so I do not believe you when you pry at people's heartstrings and emotions for clarification .

Don't you think the thesis that "The Iraq war didn't happen" is much clearer now?

FWIW, most reasonable supporters of Barack do not think he is a messiah, despite many other people's projections of that belief onto them. I personally see him as a fresh start to progressive politics that requires us to build an undeniable majority in the Congress to push through progressive agendas, and use a bully pulpit to educate a confused, non-ideological population, to see the common objectives that we have and how to reach those objectives.

Real progressives are not looking for saviors, or to indivdualize the collective mechanisms of government into one person.

[AtomicKitten]

75. ClintonCo plays into that with their redux of "It's the economy, stupid." 2.0

The Democratic Party en masse must correct this country's catastrophic foreign policy, and Obama stands apart from those willing to accept the status quo and pretend along with the GOP that things are swell.

[Hydra]

71. I love how everyone thinks B or H will make things all better

Because they have explicitly stated that they're not interested in doing such.

K&R, btw

[Seabiscuit]

72. Nothing more than a rehash of Nixon's failed "Vietnamization" plan.

[OzarkDem]

76. Phased redeployment = $10 billion month = collapsing economy

The Iraq debacle is a toy we can no longer afford. Any Dem who is too thin skinned to put the US economy ahead of suffering a few barbs from the 28%, corporate donors and news media isn't worth beans.

Get out of Iraq or destroy our economy and our future. Period.

If Obama thinks we need to keep spending that $10 billion every month, he needs to tell us how he plans to get it.

[Vinca]

82. Of course none of this would be an issue if certain people hadn't

cast a vote for war (although they now have some half-baked excuse about how it wasn't really a vote for war).

[OzarkDem]

84. Yes it would

:eyes:

[UALRBSofL]

85. It sure would

:7