"...We must ... turn our focus to those concrete objectives that are possible to attain -– namely ... maintaining our influence in the Middle East...
"Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq [sic] and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, reassure allies in Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.
"Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan, where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there ... By redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will ... provide a much-needed boost to this critical fight against terrorism.
"As a phased redeployment is executed, the majority of the U.S. troops remaining in Iraq should be dedicated to the critical, but less visible roles, of protecting logistics supply points, critical infrastructure, and American enclaves like the Green Zone, as well as acting as a rapid reaction force to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.
"In such a scenario, it is conceivable that *a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time* [emphasis added] ... We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player [sic] in this region.
"The second part of our strategy should be to couple this phased redeployment with a more effective plan that ... *expands the numbers of our personnel -– especially special forces -– who are deployed with Iraqi units advisers* [emphasis added].
"...if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
"We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to draw down forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction [cf. his comments about Iran in 2004]...
"The final lesson is that in an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism -– and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction [Iran again?] -- will require the cooperation of many nations. *We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist* [that's hard to distinguish from the Bush preventive war policy]...
"...the war is hurting our efforts in the larger battle against terrorism ... and distracted us from the growing threats of a dangerous world.
"...There is one other place where our mistakes in Iraq have cost us dearly -– and that is the loss of our government’s credibility with the American people. According to a Pew survey, 42% of Americans now agree with the statement that the U.S. should 'mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.'"
That's what's really bothering Democrats like Obama, who call it "isolationism" (cf. his scandalous remarks about Vietnam in his new book). Obama's job, for which he's well paid, is to convince the large number of Americans who voted for withdrawal from Iraq (61% in a referendum here in Champaign Co., Illinois) that this is really what they want instead. Against him and all the others like him in the national government, the antiwar movement must continue to insist as loudly as possible on an end to US/Israeli occupations and no war with Iran.
And on that, remember that Obama said during his Senate Campaign: "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary, because "having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse" than "launching some missile strikes into Iran" [Chicago Tribune, 24 Sept. 2004]. He's never retracted that, although he's been asked to.
In this speech, he mentions Iran only in passing -- as a "growing threat," a "hostile country," and, with Syria, "countries [that] want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions." --CGE
Michael Pugliese wrote:
> Obama: Stop `coddling' Iraq
> Amid speculation about whether he'll run for president, Sen. Barack
> Obama is calling for a "substantial" withdrawal of U.S. forces
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ct=title&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1111377207
> Results 1 - 30 of about 194 related articles. Search took 0.20 seconds.
>
>
>