Obama Policy: Iraq

2008 Presidential Candidate Platform Discussion

Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, Senator Obama has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

www.barackobama.com...


Presented for critical discussion and analysis by ATS members under the spirit of the new guidelines announced in This Thread.

Whether the invasion was necessary or right is an academic question at this point. Obama has suggested a dangerous timeline for withdrawal. He was wrong about the success of the surge. And, the recent revelation that he had tried to convince the Iraqi gov't to withhold announcement of an agreement for withdrawal until after the election can only be interpreted one way.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

www.barackobama.com...

Thats Sen. Obama stance as of now in regards to dealing with Iraq. I am not going to sit here and say that he is a subject matter expert because he is not and I think that Sen. McCain clearly hold the advantage on this issue. Obama has adjusted his views on Iraq to the reality on the ground and perhaps that and the fact that he oppose the surge could hurt him politically.

I think Iraq is less of an issue than months back. Especially since Iraq and the US have agreed in principles to a US pullout.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

source

As a result arguing about what each said in the past adds nothing as to what is being done at the current moment.

But I do have a bone to pick with both, but this is an Obama thread so I will say this. I don't think we should send troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. We should do like Obama used to say in the primary...Bring the Troops Home.

By sending more troops we are risking that the Afghanistan may begin to see us as an occupation force. This could lead to more bloodshed like we saw and have seen in Iraq. In addition we need to focus on further establishing and training the Afghanistan military to defend itself and establish its economy so we can begin withdrawing from Afghanistan as well. We don't need to get involved in an Afghanistan-Russian type war. And I feel this could happen if send troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

As far as the war on terror we need to find other ways to fight it besides a combat field. We are fighting groups and not a country.

I'm honestly not sure how we ended up in Iraq to begin with. I suppose Saddam was threatening to trade oil in some other currency and perhaps the US just made example out of him.

Since the Iraq war began we have seen oil prices rise not drop. So being buddies with Iraq hasn't does us any good (so far).

One also has to wonder about the immenent threat posed by Iraq? They had no Air Force or advanced missile capabilities like Iran, N. Korea, etc. It doesn't take a genius to see how other nations would pose more threat to our national security. Obama recognized this. He wants to go after the terrorist network in Afghanistan which is where Bin Laden supposedly was to begin with...

A quick look at the math...

If our forces are 150,000 strong in Iraq and you bring in 10,000 more, that means we have increased our strength by 6.7%.

Furthermore,

If our forces are 10,000 strong in Afghanistan and you bring in 30,000 troops you increase our presence there by 300%.

As Obama says on his website.... do you honestly feel safer even if Iraq totally stabalizes (it has stabalized some)? Saudi A. was "stable" but most of the 911 hijackers were from there! What does that tell you? Honestly!

Actually I do feel safer. The reason is cause Saddam had already demonstrated that he only cared about himself. He fought Iran, killed his own people, and killed anyone else who got in his way. But there is a slight difference between him and the other countries you mentioned. We took his Mother of All Wars and shoved it up his you know what for 100 hours. After this he was out to embarrass us/get us at every opportunity. Just look at how many times he snub his nose at the UN mandates and played them against us.

That aside I will say this. Saddam was a future threat not an imminent threat. You are correct in saying that we shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Maybe at a future date but not when we went in. As much as I thank Bush for getting him out of their I also have to question Bush real motives. I do believe like many other people and countries that Saddam did have WMD's. However Saddam got the last laugh because he did pull the Mother of All Bluffs and Bush looked foolish when we discovered very little WMD's in Iraq..

I think the real reason Dubya took us to war is because Saddam had threatened his Daddy and also to finish what his daddy should have finished. Get rid of Saddam. If we had taken Saddam out in the first war we would have been a lot better off. I can't prove this but I honestly feel this was the reason.

reply to post by jam321


Saddam only cared about himself? How does that differ from 98% of the rest of the world's population??

He fought Iran,

Yeah and? How many countries has the US fought? We are on the cusp of fighting Iran.

killed his own people,

Do you honestly think any governing body wouldn't do the same if a part of their population turned on them in the midst of war?

and killed anyone else who got in his way.

Your either with us or with the terrorists... Ring a bell?

Look, I certainly detest Saddam as much as anyone else but when dealing with national security and multi-billion dollar decisions you have to wonder?? How dangerous was Saddam? Iran just tried to put a satellite into space. Saddam had nowhere near that technology.

reply to post by Scramjet76

do you honestly feel safer even if Iraq totally stabalizes

You asked a question and I gave you an answer.

Like I said I agree with you that this wasn't the moment and I also gave you what I feel was the real reason why we went in.

All I know is when we got on that airplane after the first war, we all agreed that we didn't finish the job and that we would end up back over there one day. Bush daddy was wrong to cut the first war short and leave Saddam in place.

And yes I do feel safer. I won't even debate it because I know we all see things different and I respect that. But all I can say is that there is one less person the United States has to be worried about being threatened by.

Your either with us or with the terrorists

This was nothing more than hyped up feel good words. If this was really our motto we would have been in Saudi Arabia from the word GO. Not to mention many other counties.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Saudi A. was "stable" but most of the 911 hijackers were from there! What does that tell you? Honestly!

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said, and more.

but as i've quoted above, we dont know for full sure that there "were" hijackers on that plane! Beside its what you've describe above in your post from the Governments lying and provoking wars that would lead to a sept 11 so basically its like the government are not really protecting you and your fellow americans, if you think about it..

Remember its theory that it was a terrorist's attack.

Originally posted by jam321


All I know is when we got on that airplane after the first war, we all agreed that we didn't finish the job and that we would end up back over there one day. Bush daddy was wrong to cut the first war short and leave Saddam in place.

You obviously dont know much, dont talk about it then!

And yes I do feel safer. I won't even debate it because I know we all see things different and I respect that. But all I can say is that there is one less person the United States has to be worried about being threatened by.

More lunacy. You remind me of chaos!

This was nothing more than hyped up feel good words. If this was really our motto we would have been in Saudi Arabia from the word GO. Not to mention many other counties.

Well I guess your hyporcritical too, cus you say you folow the war on Iraq, now you say you should go like a madman to more wars.

Oh turn off the T.V. and get educated about this planet.

reply to post by mind is the universe

Well I guess your hyporcritical too, cus you say you folow the war on Iraq, now you say you should go like a madman to more wars.

talk about a lack of education, go back to school and take a class on manners and while your at it take you a class on reading comprehension. Oh yea, don't forget the stay off drugs class.

You obviously dont know much, dont talk about it then!

unless you were on that airplane you wouldn't know. Reread the first part to improve your reading comprehension.

More lunacy. You remind me of chaos!

Chaos and lunacy is the only thing you contributed to this post.


Have a good one......Chaos....

reply to post by jam321


Yes jam I respect where you are coming from. I also believe the world is a better place without Saddam. Certainly one can argue it would have been wise to stay in Iraq the first time. South Korea certainly seems to be doing better than N. Korea!

I think it's more of where do you want your hard earned tax dollars going? To thwart a guy who has no air force or missile capabilities? With so many rogue regimes around the world I guess we might as well draw names out of a hat. Honestly though, math-wise you can see it would have taken far less troops to stabalize afghanistan (in theory), we might have caught bin laden (if he exists lol), and we still would have been next door to Iran (to keep a watch on them).

Scramjet76, I agree with you about Afghanistan and maybe even Bin Laden(LOL) . As far as Iran, I feel they are a bigger threat right now to Europe than they are us. US should sit back and let Europe deal with them for a few years.

I prefer Obama's stance on Iraq to Mccain's, if the US stays there as long as Mccain thinks they should then the US will go bankrupt. Obama at least seems to have some sort of a plan to pull out, even if it is by no means perfect. Many of the problems in Iraq, Iran and that entire area would go away if the US and others just left and let them get on with their own affairs.

thats impossible, if we did pull out of the middle east right now, that would cause a "vacuum effect" so to speak, of terrorist waves. everything we've worked so hard for would be lost in a matter of months because everyone would come back outside to play as soon as US forces leave. all us casualties would have been for nothing. tell a fallen soldiers mother that her son died for no reason, and then post back.

Although Obama was against the war, he did not provide an alternative plan. He just repeated what others were saying. The fact is that Obama did not have the necessary intel (good or bad) to make a responsible decision. He made this decision based on his own gut, no intel. I appreciate Obama's courage, but what if the intel was right? The fact is that he made that decision without considering what NSA,CIA and other agencies were saying. To me that's disturbing, making a decision not to go to war without having the info to base a decision. Therefore, basically, what Obama did is what he always did: Vote present. Vote against the war and did not have an alternative plan. We need somebody who is going to kick ass and bomb the living crap outta of terrorists in order to protect us all..man,women and children. Obama is a nice guy and everything...but, do I really feel safe with Obama as commander in chief? naa

Ten years from now that section of the world will still have the same problems so why not pull all US interests (men and equip;ent) out now. We gain nothing by dragging it out. And as for Iran and Norht Koriea. It is though someone a few centuries ago would have tried to stop the spread of gun powder. No country on the planet (or group of countries) can stop the spread of nuclear weapons. They can only tempoarily delay it. Dinwiddy

Can someone tell me the difference between Iraq today and before the invasion the second time? If little or none, what has the US accomplished except spend itself to death. They say 54% of our tax dollars goes to support Bush's wars. And yes, I'm convinced that mother's son did die in vain. Look back over the centuries and what have all the wars in the area accomplished (from the Crusades to the present)?

Phased withdrawal????!?!? I support a immediate frantic mass exodus!

WE CAN NOT AFFORD ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF THIS WAR!
We can't even afford the last four years.