Where Does Obama Stand On Ending Iraq & Oversight?

The debate around Iraq has been vague, general and shallow, essentially iterating over and over that neither Obama nor Clinton would immediately withdraw all troops. Don't wanna look too dovish!

So how is it Barack Obama will end the occuption?  The corpus of my diary. And not only that, he's already worked on legislation for oversight of these robbers--the defense contractors who've looted a trillion or so--in Iraq.

Known for her aggressive style and lack of deference for authority, independent journalist-progressive Amy Goodman quickly questioned Barack Obama about the occupation after an economic speech at Cooper Union in NYC:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Obama, quick question: 70 percent of Iraqis say they want the US to withdraw completely; why don’t you call for a total withdrawal?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I do, except for our embassy. I call for amnesty and protecting our civilian contractors there.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said a residual force—

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, but—

AMY GOODMAN: —which means [inaudible] thousands [inaudible].

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. I mean, I don’t think that you’ve read exactly what I’ve said. What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places. But we do have to have some presence in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you call for a ban on the private military contractors like Blackwater?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I’ve actually—I’m the one who sponsored the bill that called for the investigation of Blackwater in [inaudible], so—

AMY GOODMAN: But would you support the Sanders one now?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright? I mean, I—

AMY GOODMAN: Not a ban?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don’t want to replace those contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.

AMY GOODMAN: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: That’s what—I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.

The Sandersbill is here.  

"Contractors." Now Blackwater, Halliburton, Bechtel: these names are infamous, but there are many contractors in Iraq.  Their business is booming in the midst of a recession.  Why?  Because the national vault has been left unlocked and they were given a few wheelbarrows to help themselves with.  Free market my ass!

Constitutional Law Scholar-Obama Goes on Attack Against Blackwater

Last October in Iowa, Obama explained his stance on the defense contractors.  Characterizing the organization as conducting in Iraq "with reckless disregard to Iraqi life", Senator Obama went on to state, "Most contractors [in Iraq] act as if the law doesn't apply to them," he said.

"Under my plan, if contractors break the law, they will be prosecuted."

Bin-go.

Worth pointing out that the only two cases of contractors charged were two Americans with only American victims--child pornography and attempted rape.

His House Bill counterpart was introduced that very month, and would give the FBI oversight of U.S.-Iraq contractors. It would:

--require F.B.I. investigation into allegations of wrongdoing.
--create "theater investigative units"--field offices in the war zone for the F.B.I.
--the Justice Department would have to report to Congress on "on the number of complaints, investigations and criminal cases brought against contractors"

Corruption, say hello to oversight.  Transparency!  Binding procedure! Obama also introduced an amendment to 2007's Defense Dept. Authorization Bill--which passed in the Senate--that would require Congressional oversight on the number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, their compensation and cost, which companies are awarded contracts and the <strong.process</strong> by which contractors' deaths are tracked among government agencies.

And of course, Obama says much the same about ending the war and bringing the troops home on his website, targeting a 16 month countdown for the withdrawl of all combat troops, leaving a residual force to guard the American embassy. No permanent bases.

I for one am no critic of Sanders but I do not see the replacement of contractors with more soldiers as a good thing.  The military is perilously strained, private contractors have been "running amok".  But if contractors are watched, their behavior will change.  The onus seems to be on effective oversight.  Even a sociopath knows when he can no longer act with immunity.  Message is: carte blanche is over.

•  Tips Jar March 28th

  Btw, the progressive "expert" on Blackwater Jeremy Scahill has a recent critique of the Iraq debate in which he casts heavy doubt on Clinton's support for the ban on Blackwater in Iraq.  He's an Obama critic, but not a Hillary supporter.  He notes:

  On Monday, Obama struck back. “Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don’t believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it.”

  by Nulwee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM PDT

•  Neither Clinton nor Obama will get out of Iraq

  In the third or fourth year of his or her presidency, Obama or Clinton will start reducing troop levels to make democrats happy, but they won't/can't rush the process.

  by ford prefect 2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:23:58 PM PDT

  •  *

    by Nulwee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM PDT

    •  Care to elaborate?

      A no text comment with an asterisk in the subject seems like a way to target certain comments for special attention, without requiring the trouble of wading through the entire thread. Please edify me if I am off base.

      by mrblifil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM PDT

      •  Well

        Where's your source for this specified certainty?

        by Nulwee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM PDT

        •  *

          by mrblifil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM PDT

        •  Specified certainty?

          I said "seems like?" Read much?

          by mrblifil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:38 PM PDT

•  I'd like to hear

  how he plans to avoid the same sort of humanitarian crises at the end of the first Gulf War. It's reasonable to assume that the withdrawal of US troops could lead to large refugee populations left to their own devices. How does he intend to deal with the potential for such a situation?

  by mrblifil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM PDT

  •  1

    There already are 2 million refugees.  There is a humanitarian crisis!

    2. “Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail.

    In the rest of the article Obama iterates that diplomacy is the end-all of Iraq strategy, and the genocide cannot be the determinant.

    “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

    by Nulwee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM PDT

    •  What do you consider a refugee?

      Guess it depends who's counting. A conservative estimate released March 4.

      Internally displaced refugees in Iraq: 3.4 million
      Iraqi refugees living abroad: 2.2-2.4 million
      Iraqi refugees admitted to the U.S.: 3,222

      by LaEscapee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:44:25 PM PDT

•  Good diary

  And it wasn't what I thought it was going to be at all!

  Thanks for explaining Obama's postions on withdrwal, residual forces, and private contractors.

  Actually we do need them the problems is this administration and the GOP Congress gave them far to many powers and held no oversight on them.

  Obama will most certainly fix that to be sure!

  If I may give a suggestion, take the question mark off the title if you can, it seemed to me with that question mark it might be a kind of 'attack' Obama diary--that could just be me--

  Also put up a tip jar --I'll give ya a rec, and a tip if you put up a jar!

  by Wary on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM PDT

•  Its a mess

  If we stay, its a mess
  If we pull out fast, its a mess
  If we pull out in a deliberate fashion, its a mess

  America doesn't control the agenda in Iraq - power blocks in Iraq and its neighbors do that. America is screwed whatever it does and lots of Iraqis will be screwed whatever they do.

  I expect that Barack will search high and low for a way to extricate us as humanely as possible. He won't fully succeed because success is no longer in American hands.

  However, I also believe that the TV image of "President Obama", being relentlessly reasonable with the rest of the world, will send a shockwave through the world community that will lower the temperature just a tad.

  That will save lives - American, Iraqi and others.

  by grapes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM PDT

•  I'm very relieved by this!

  SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright?

  I dislike the privatization of the military. I think it's wasteful and unwise. At the same time, I'm not thrilled with the idea of having large mercenary forces sitting around at home while the rest of the military has its hands full overseas. Drawing them down at the same proportional rate seems prudent to me in every respect.

  by SciVo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM PDT

•  It's very important to replace contractors

  with soldiers.

  1. The army has traditionally done many of the grunt jobs that contractors are filling now.  Presumably, the idea of replacing soldiers with contractors is to free soldiers up for front-line dangerous duty.  But we see contractors being put into front-line positions and gtuntwork positions and if not on the front-line, then close enough to it to make it blurry.

  2. Soldiers are (relatively) cheap.  Contractors are very expensive.  And the contract-awarding process can be (and usually is) strewn with graft.

  3. Soldiers can't hire lobbyists to lobby Congressmen to keep the war going because the pay is so good.  Private contractors can.

  4. Mercenaries are a security hole.  If/when they aren't working for us in Iraq anymore, they may have to find work for somebody else or find themselves occupied in private armies.  The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is a career.

  5. If the Army doesn't like the job that contractors for a company like KBR are doing for its soldiers, they can't scream at them and kick their asses.  They can kick soldiers' asses.

  We need a larger, cheaper army that does more of its own work.  And I really don't want companies like KBR and Blackwater interfering in the US political system anymore.

  by Dumbo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM PDT