Released from SoapBlox/Chicago
On Tuesday, Barack Obama gave a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. In it, he discussed the Iraq war and its handlers. The speech combined the two facets that have come to define Obama's first year as Senator: His pragmatism and disdain of partisanship. He began and ended the speech with derision for the partisanship that has perverted any attempts to find an actual solution to what has become the Iraq quagmire. In between, he offered his view on what the road to success in Iraq will look like (making it very clear that these ideas come from the combined work of many, including other senators and foreign policy experts).
More on the plan, articles covering the speech, and the full text of the speech below the fold.
The Obama plan:
- Reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq, especially over the next year.
- Develop a time frame for a phased withdrawal.
- Recognize what the future government of Iraq will actually look like rather than what we want it to look like.
- Return to reconstructing Iraqi infrastructure as a major goal.
- Launch a major diplomatic effort to get the international community involved in Iraq.
- Remember that the overarching goal is to stop international terrorism and that the Iraq situation cannot distract us from this.
The
AP,
Reuters, and the
Chicago Tribune all had a different take on his speech, but one line was in every story, the administration's response to criticism of their handling of Iraq as "shameful".
AP:
Obama defended Murtha and called any criticism of his patriotism "shameful."
Reuters:
The administration's response last week to Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate troop withdrawal was "shameful," Obama said, and pushed the debate farther from finding a pragmatic solution to the conflict.
Tribune:
As he scolded the White House for what he called "shameful" attempts to silence dissent about the war, Obama urged President Bush to look beyond politics and admit that mistakes were made in Iraq.
The AP focused on his calls for troop withdrawal: "Obama calls for troop reduction in Iraq"
Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a troop reduction in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration for questioning the patriotism of people who have spoken out against the war.
"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq," the Illinois Democrat said during a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. "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."
Reuters took a different approach and highlighted Obama's criticism's of the Bush regime's politicization of Iraq: "Senator says Bush needs to depoliticize Iraq"
President George W. Bush should take politics out of the
Iraq war by admitting he made mistakes and pledging to work with both parties to find a responsible way to end it, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said on Tuesday.
By turning the discussion of the war into a for-us or against-us proposition, the White House last week "showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on the future of Iraq -- none," Obama said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
Obama, the only black in the Senate, said Bush "could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all" if he would tell the American people: "'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes. there are things I would have done differently. But ... I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out."
Over at the Chicago Tribune, Obama is seen again advocating troop reductions: Obama: 'Reduce the U.S. military footprint' in Iraq"
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) injected himself Tuesday into the forefront of a growing bipartisan call to reappraise American foreign policy in Iraq, saying the U.S. should begin a gradual withdrawal of its troops next year so Iraqis become empowered to take charge of their country's fate.
...
"During the course of the next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq," Obama said in a luncheon speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, a forum he had requested. "Notice that I say `reduce,' and not `fully withdraw.' "
Obama, who vigorously opposed the war during his Senate candidacy, made his first major foray into the escalating public debate as Congress and the White House wrestle with the past and the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq and as American military deaths in conflict reached 2,100.
"The administration has narrowed an entire debate about war into two camps: `cut-and-run' or `stay the course,' " Obama said. "If you offer any criticism or even mention that we should take a second look at our strategy and change our approach, you're branded `cut-and-run.' If you're ready to blindly trust the administration no matter what they do, you're willing to stay the course."
From Senator Obama's website we have the full text of the speech. Some highlights are below.
[The injured soldiers] remind us, in case we need reminding, that there is no more profound decision that we can make than the decision to send this nation's youth to war, and that we have a moral obligation not only to send them for good reasons, but to constantly examine, based on the best information and judgment available, in what manner, and for what purpose, and for how long we keep them in harm's way.
...
And so as the war rages on and the insurgency festers - as another father weeps over a flag-draped casket and another wife feeds her husband the dinner he can't fix for himself - it is our duty to ask ourselves hard questions. What do we want to accomplish now that we are in Iraq, and what is possible to accomplish? What kind of actions can we take to ensure not only a safe and stable Iraq, but that will also preserve our capacity to rebuild Afghanistan, isolate and apprehend terrorist cells, preserve our long-term military readiness, and devote the resources needed to shore up our homeland security? What are the costs and benefits of our actions moving forward? What urgency are we willing to show to bring our troops home safely? What kind of answers are we willing to demand from those in charge of the war?
In other words -- What kind of debate are we willing to have?
Last week, the White House showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on future of Iraq - none.
We watched the shameful attempt to paint John Murtha - a Marine Corp recipient of two-purple hearts and a Bronze Star - into a coward of questionable patriotism. We saw the Administration tell people of both parties - people who asked legitimate questions about the intelligence that led us to war and the Administration's plan for Iraq - that they should keep quiet, end the complaining, and stop rewriting history.
...
We know now that even at the time these unequivocal statements were made, intelligence assessments existed that contradicted these claims. Analysis from the CIA and State Department was summarily dismissed when it did not help the Administration make the case for war.
I say all this not to score cheap political points. I say this because war is a serious business. It requires enormous sacrifice, in blood and treasure, from the American people. The American people have already lost confidence in the credibility of our leadership, not just on the question of Iraq, but across the board. According to a recent Pew survey, 42% of Americans 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" - a significant increase since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We risk a further increase in isolationist sentiment unless both the Administration and Congress can restore the American people's confidence that our foreign policy is driven by facts and reason, rather than hopes and ideology. And we cannot afford isolationism - not only because our work with respect to stabilizing Iraq is not complete, but because our missteps in Iraq have distracted us from the larger threat of terrorism that we face, a threat that we can only meet by working internationally, in cooperation with other countries.
Now, given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are involved in shaping our national security policies should do what we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient. I strongly opposed this war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of events on the ground.
...
Last week's re-politicization of the war makes this kind of focus extremely difficult. In true Washington fashion, the Administration has narrowed an entire debate about war into two camps: "cut-and-run" or "stay the course." If you offer any criticism or even mention that we should take a second look at our strategy and change our approach, you're branded cut-and-run. If you're ready to blindly trust the Administration no matter what they do, you're willing to stay the course.
...
Every American wants to see a peaceful and stable Iraq. No American wants to leave behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide. But no American wants a war without end - a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.
In the end, Iraq is not about one person's legacy, a political campaign, or rigid adherence to an ideology.
What is happening in Iraq is about the security of the United States. It is about our men and women in uniform. It is about the future of the Middle East. It is about the world in which our children will live.
Responsible voices from all parts of the political spectrum are coming forth to say this in increasing numbers.
Colin Powell had the courage to call his presentation to the United Nations on Iraq a "blot" on his distinguished record. And recently John Edwards said he made a mistake in voting to go to war in Iraq, and accepted responsibility for this decision.
It is no coincidence that both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Powell no longer serve the government in Washington. Those of us in Washington are falling behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue.
...
Nearly four decades ago, John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He admitted that mistakes had been made. He didn't spend a good deal of time publicly blaming the previous Administration, or the other party, or his critics. And through these decisive actions, he earned the respect of the American people and the world - respect that allowed his diplomacy to be trusted a few years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Americans everywhere are crying out for this kind of leadership today. They want to find pragmatic solutions to the difficult and complicated situation in Iraq. They want to move forward on of the greatest foreign policy challenges that this nation has faced in a generation. And they want to get it right for every American son and daughter who's been willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country they love. It's time for us in Washington to offer the rest of the country this leadership.