Tweet
(Speech text posted here…will link the YouTube when it goes up.)
Sen. Barack Obama is giving, as we speak, a major address on foreign policy and strategy that is a refreshing change from the "Yee Haw!" idiocy of the Bush/Cheney regime and the "me too!" policies of John McCain.
You may not have known about it, because the Bush Administration hastily scheduled a presser to promote the psychological boost of non-useful oil drilling, which the press dutifully covered despite its non-policy value. Ahhh, nice to have some press sheeple auto-coverage in your pocket, eh, Bushie?
Heaven forbid we should have a real discussion about a matter of the utmost importance which deserves some serious and thorough public debate. To wit, here are excerpts from Obama’s speech as prepared for delivery today:
As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century….
In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia.
If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.
Senator McCain said – just months ago – that ‘Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.’ I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.
Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.
Nice to see some recognition that diplomacy and something other than flexing military muscle and making petulant demands of obeisance might be under consideration, isn’t it?
On Saturday, for the book salon on Richard Clarke’s book Your Government Failed You, AJ Rossmiller made this very clear point on the interrelationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan and our incoherent American policy at the moment:
…The new government isn’t running very well, and it seems like the country has, in many ways (with regard to foreign relations), ground to a halt. With our election heating up and their government struggling to operate, there’s a window of opportunity for bad guys to exploit the power vacuum.
Our continued problems in Afghanistan are directly related to this, of course.
As dday clearly lays out here, there are long-term consequences to our inchoate policy non-choices, VetVoice adds a sobering note, and Juan Cole adds some excellent critique on the Obama foreign policy possibilities to the mix. I have to say, it’s awfully nice to see some discussion early on instead of after the fiat is issued as the Bush/Cheney folks have tended to do. Here’s hoping that holds.
The shame of it is that we all — Americans, Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis…you name it, we all pay the price for the piss poor policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration. And if we elect John McCain in November? There are a number of reasons he’s been dubbed McSame…
35 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Yeehaw!
I updated the post above to include a link to the speech — it’s streaming live here…
Thank you, Christy, nice post. It would be refreshing to have grown-ups back in charge.
No more money for Pakistan please after all just what have the billions Bush has given Pakistan got us except more video tapes of Ossama?
But on the plus side Obama at least knows who the enemy is and where they are at?
I want a public audit of where all the money Bush gave Pakistan has gone! I think that issue would be a winner for us. Let McCain talk about the Surge we want Ossama!
I have always thought that Bush made a deal with the Saudis NOT to catch Osama. They’re all cozy friends and he’s from a wealthy family so they have let him get away time and again.
And the Bush family always takes care of their cronies.
“The Surge is working!” That is if you are a war profiteer.
Meanwhile, CNN is going to go to a McCain speech momentarily . . .
…The new government isn’t running very well, and it seems like the country has, in many ways (with regard to foreign relations), ground to a halt. With our election heating up and their government struggling to operate, there’s a window of opportunity for bad guys to exploit the power vacuum.
I think the reason Bush can’t govern is because private interests like Hal and KBR want to make a buck which puts their interests against the governments which should be for the government to get the best value for its buck.
Bush wants to be everyone’s friend when he should be the Decider!
CNN ran the Obama speech – and while my attention was interrupted several times by work stuff, it was incredibly refreshing to hear talk of diplomacy, significant foreign aid and the idea that not all solutions are military – as was the very important stand on climate change.
I’m going back to look at details but the overall approach is a real breath of fresh air and saner thinking.
there is no “war on terror” and until obama figures that one out, i fear he will only give us better tactics in service of the same flawed policy goals.
Saudis, Pakistan he made a deal with someone.
Read the whole speech — don’t just judge based on the early excerpts I got…
Why does Obama think that his aid money to Pakistan will reach the People of Pakistan? I keep hearing rummors of Pakistani Generals skimming a lot more than just the top on the aid Bush has given them.
I heard the presdent actually say;
“experts tell us there are ten years worth of our nations “supply of oil” in his speach
we produce 3 percent of our needs, ten years worth of our “supply” translates into 30 percent of one year
that’s right, the president actually said we are missing out on 4 months worth of oil by not drilling
barak needs to HAMMER that point
The Bush Administration has done no oversight on where the money was sent or spent once it reached the Pakistani government. Traditionally, such aid money gets parcelled out directly to aide agencies or administered by the State Department, among others, directly to groups who need it rather than being done as a governmental pass through (read: bribe) as the Bush Administration has done. That’s one of the many reasons why, I’d suspect…because the foreign policy experts on Obama’s team have actually practiced both diplomacy and real national security long-term planning.
i will…. was just over at the chat with marcy and carl levin -but i will give it a listen.
my comment isn’t just based on your quote though – i’ve been reading some of what obama has to say (and also the Very Serious Foreign Policy Experts he has been recruiting lately)…. and i’m seriously worried.
Jane has a new post
Am still reading through the full speech myself (in between heating up lunch and taking the dogs out to the lawn after the Levin chat…lol), but there are some good nuggets in the read thus far…
Is there a link for Obama’s speech?
The contrast between the McCain performance just now and Obama’s speech is astonishing. Obama’s overarching position that military action alone is not the way to do effective foreign policy is so important and the specific commitments to funding development and aid look good.
I’ve got to go back and read carefully – I know I disagree (strongly) with several points but I am also cheering several and the shift of approach involved and the funding proposals are refreshing.
The link is at the very top of the post
It’s at the top of my post…I don’t have the YouTube to link up yet, but will when it’s available.
I wish Obama would refrain from using the term “homeland”. It is so Republican and perhaps, Cold War.
How about more positive language like “Our nation,” “Our domestic concerns,” “national security.”
If I were running for President, first tasks: withdraw from Iraq and rename Department of Homeland Security
do you have a link to the text? your top link goes to a video. thanks.
I don’t have a way to permalink this but you should see the photos up on CNN’s mainpage on this speech Obama, McCain trade jabs on war. Nice picture of an Obama snarling from beneath deeply shadowed eyes.
wow. they’re not even trying to be subtle. got a screenshot i can post if there is interest.
The link at the top does go to the text now — I updated it as soon as I got the text link. If you refresh your screen, it should be there for you. And I’ll add the YouTube soon as I get a link for it…
Actually the text is here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page…..ott/gGxkFr
great quality audio in the MSNBC video (36 mins.) here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..0#25689940
thank you christy and hugh – if i tell christy i’m going to do something, i figure i better actually do it!
Barack’s speech was essentially a “21st Century Marshall Plan for Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan”
Thanks for the informative post, Christy. I guess it’s getting to be time to reach into my pocket and send a contribution to Obama.
I find Obama’s Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran position as outlined in his NYT’s op-ed, to be more in line with the Bush administration and the mindless “war on terror” than many of his supporters would like to acknowledge.
From the man who said he opposed the war in Iraq, while funding it every step of the way, we seem to be getting a new front for the “war on terror” in Afghanistan. For that front, he advocates more money and resources for the “mission.”
Is the “mission” to defeat the “Taliban?” Is the mission to re-build the country? Defeat Al Qaeda? Seize control from the warlords? Destroy the poppy fields? We could be there decades. Doesn’t the Soviet lesson tell us anything?
If the “mission” is to use Afghanistan as a base to attack the “terrorist” isolated in the mountainous border region, how in fact will he do that.
His op-ed piece contains stereotypical assertions and strategies mouthed by the same people that brought us the Iraq debacle.
Is everyone ready for an unlimited timeframe and ill-defined “mission” in Afghanstan with the necessary commitment of troops and money to complete whatever is the “mission?”
I have these questions from his op-ed:
Does “the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban” have any concrete meaning in relationship to our mission in Afghanistan? Is it possible to be successful when there is wide-spread support for those groups in both Afghanistan and Pakistan?
When Obama says, “Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran ” does he believe we face a threat from Iran? Do we?
Was this ever a real problem and is his statement true, “the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda.”
It is almost laughable that he has this statement from, “Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.”
After billions of dollars and multiple similar assertions, is there any reason to believe this one?
This is another talking point that was never accurate: “residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” Was or is that the problem or is it the civil war between rival religious and sectarian forces? How big of a factor was “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia?”
Then for the money line he quotes, “Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
What is that “job?”
I guess Obama wants to be a wartime president with this characterization: “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there (Afghanistan).”
Obama goes from “job” to “mission” to “effort” in what amounts to an endless undefined commitment.
Obama ends with, “It’s time to end this war.” And escalate a new war in Afghanistan?
I found the op-ed disingenuous.
increase of ground troops by over 90,000?
escalation in afghanistan in support of our puppet gov? and pakistan?
continuing military presence in iraq? while blaming the iraqis for current problems?
as i recall, even bush when he was campaigning in 2000 sounded better than this. my head hurts.
this is the most depressing thing i’ve heard since.. ok, it’s only been since the dems in congress trashed the constitution and justfied it as good policy.
course i’m only up to 23 minutes.