Obama in the NYT: My Plan For Iraq

Speeches And Strategy
by hilzoy at obsidianwings

Both Obama and McCain made major foreign policy speeches today. It's worth reading both in their entirety. They are very interesting, and very different. Obama got at one of the most important differences here:

"Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe. (...)

Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world."

This is exactly right. If you read the two speeches together, it's striking how much Obama focusses on understanding our foreign policy goals not just one by one, but in terms of their relation to one another, and to our broader interests: the costs of the war in Iraq to Afghanistan, to our military, and to our broader interests; the importance of having a good Pakistan policy to Afghanistan, terrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation; the relationship of our energy policy and our alliances to each of these things.

If you look at McCain's speech, by contrast, it does not have much strategic vision at all. (It's worth noting that his major new proposal is to create separate Czar-ships for Iraq and Afghanistan: to separate, not to combine.) Here, as best I can tell, is what he says about the relationship between Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan."

I take it that by the claim that Obama thinks "we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq", McCain is referring to the idea that we can't send more troops to Afghanistan until we bring some of them home from Iraq. This is, of course, true, and it's worth asking whether McCain's Iraq policy makes enough troops available to allow him to do what he says he wants to do in Afghanistan. He does not consider that question, as far as I can tell. And that's the only way in which he discusses the impact those two wars have on one another.

The relationship he's really interested in is quite different: it's not about the effects our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have on one another, but the idea of using what we did in Anbar province as a model for Afghanistan:

"It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

McCain also notes that there are differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, and that these need to be taken into account. That's good, since a lot of his speech consists in saying: we need to take the approach that has worked in Iraq, and use it in Afghanistan. And at times, he doesn't take nearly enough account of those differences. For instance, he says -- apparently about Pakistani tribes -- that "We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq." But there are huge, huge disanalogies between these two cases. One is that we are, thank God, not occupying Pakistan, which means both that we have a lot less control over what's going on and that thr tribes do not in any way have to deal with us. Another is that the Sunnis in Anbar province were facing the threat of an extremely hostile government composed of people they believed to be dedicated to their destruction, and needed our protection and support while they beefed up their militias. Nothing of the kind is true in Pakistan.

But to my mind, the most important difference between the two speeches, apart from the enormous differences in policy, is that Obama consistently relates one foreign policy goal to another, while McCain seems to view them in isolation. As for the policy differences, they're pretty obvious. Obama:

"I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders. (...)

So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President."

Exactly.

One more bit from Obama's speech is also worth thinking about. I've put it below the fold.

"The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

Posted by hilzoy at 03:57 PM in Iraq and Terrorism | Permalink

Obama wrote: "I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009."

Dear MoveOn member,

The good news: The media is covering Iraq again. The bad news: They're dropping out the most important part of the story. Even Iraq's own Prime Minister is demanding a timeline for withdrawal, but John McCain's policy would keep us in Iraq for years to come. In fact, he wants to avoid talking about a plan for exit, since he doesn't have one.