Disclosure: I blog at America for Richardson and am a volunteer with the Richardson campaign.
So this morning, Senator Barack Obama made a big speech on Iraq, and talked about withdrawing troops and "turning the page in Iraq". On the surface, it sounds pretty good, until you examine the details.
While dazzling his audience with the usual rhetorical gymnastics about being opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning and ending the war, Obama uses the old jedi mind trick ("these aren't the droids you're looking for")to deflect from his foreign policy shortcoming. Much like Luke Skywalker, Obama still has much to learn on the subject of foreign policy.
Follow me over the fold for more of the hype that fails to address the problem.
In the speech, Senator Obama only addresses removing combat troops. How many residual troops will he leave behind? Look closely at what Senator Obama is saying. He'll leave combat troops in Iraq for the next 15 months. What about non-combat troops, Senator Obama? According to his campaign website, Senator Obama will be leaving behind troops to train Iraqis, operate as strike forces to engage extremists and terrorists, provide security and operate our military bases. And those troops will continue to be the target of jihadists.
And here is Obama's fact sheet about his plan from this morning's speech.
Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.
So, Senator Obama, what's your answer to Bill Richardson's question?
Under Obama's plan, we can expect to have non-combat forces in Iraq for years to come. So while Senator Obama cloaks himself in the mantle of change, his policy on Iraq reflects his inexperience in dealing with major foreign policy issues.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama is listening more to Beltway insiders on Iraq than to the will of the American people. He's listening to the voices in the establishment saying a complete withdrawal will result in chaos and violence in Iraq - as if we aren't already seeing sectarian violence and chaos. And how about Barack Obama's long-standing relationship with the Crown family and General Dynamics, a defense contractor that would like nothing more than to continue current policy in Iraq?
For too long, the Iraqi government has been nursing at the breast of the United States of America, depending on us for security. Leaving residual troops in Iraq for years to come will not break this dependency, but more than likely will exacerbate it. It's time for the Iraqi government to be weaned, to grow up and provide for the common defense of its people. The United States should not continue to provide such an easy propaganda outlet for the recruitment of new terrorists by the likes of Osama bin Laden, and make targets of our troops.
What we need is a leader who says enough is enough, and puts an end to this foreign policy debacle; someone who actually has foreign policy experience.
As he has repeatedly done, Governor Bill Richardson once again made the case for getting all troops out of Iraq in a recent WaPo op-ed.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
And in advance of the expected comments that Bill Richardson is being unrealistic about getting all troops out in such a short time-frame, let me add that even foreign policy experts see his plan as realistic and achievable.
Several defense experts, including former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former Reagan defense official Lawrence Korb, have agreed publicly with my assessment that we can get all of our troops out quickly. During this war, we have rotated 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq in just three months-- I am confident that we can get 160,000 out safely within six to eight months.
Don't be fooled by the rhetorical slight of hand of other candidates. Bill Richardson is the only one who has consistently called for ending the war in Iraq immediately and getting all American troops out. And he's the only one with the gravitas to back up his words with actionon the global stage.
For more information on Bill Richardson's plan go here.
Update: Here is Bill Richardson's statement on Barack Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq.
"Senator Obama promised that he would lay out a different course in Iraq. I am disappointed that he has decided to offer more of the same. Senator Obama has offered to turn the page in Iraq, but I think we need a new book. Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time is nothing new. This plan is inadequate and does not end the war.
"The question is simple: How does leaving troops in Iraq end the war?
"I have asked Obama, Clinton, and Edwards numerous times to be specific as to how many troops they would leave behind in Iraq and for how long. Today, Senator Obama dodged the question yet again. He laid out a timetable for removing all of the combat troops from Iraq, but he did not tell us what he would do with the tens of thousands of non-combat troops who also are stuck in the middle of a civil war. Would he leave all those troops behind unprotected? This proposed course of action is dangerous. It does not make sense. 93% of the Sunnis and over half of the Shia think it is okay to kill Americans. Our troops are targets."
"The American people know where I stand. There is only one responsible course of action left for us in this war. We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq with no residual forces left behind. We need to withdraw both the combat troops and the tens of thousands of other troops who are there. We need to do it now."