Barack’s May 4th Afghanistan-Surge Proposal

[johnkarls]

.
Barack's May 4th "Meet the Press" Proposal for an American-Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Editorial Notes:

The sole guest on “Meet the Press” on May 4th was Barack Obama. There follows the portion of the May 4th transcript dealing with foreign policy.

I believe Barack’s proposed “surge” of additional American troops in Afghanistan is new. One wonders why Barack thinks a “surge” will work in Afghanistan since he has said that he does not believe that the “surge” has worked in Iraq. And why he thinks the ultimate result of the same overall counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan will be successful when he has said that he believes that it has not been successful in Iraq. AND THIS IS ON TOP OF HIS PROPOSAL TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN TO PREVENT THEM FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

It is interesting that Tim Russert attempts to “walk back the dog” re Barack’s Pennsylvania Debate statement = “our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iranians…I will take NO OPTIONS off the table when it comes to preventing them from…obtaining nuclear weapons…” Since Barack has said that he will go to war, if necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is disingenuous of Tim to ask Barack to comment on whether he agrees with Hillary’s proposal to extend America’s “nuclear umbrella” to Israel and “The Gulf State Six” if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Incidentally, Tim Russert is also attempting to “walk back the dog” on behalf of Hillary Clinton by claiming that she did not name any of “The Gulf State Six” with regard to her "nuclear umbrella" proposal when the Pennsylvania Debate transcript shows that she named specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and “others” which, since “others” is plural, must include at least at least 2 of the 3 remaining “Gulf State Six.”


*****
MR. RUSSERT: More from Senator Barack Obama, live from Indianapolis, right after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. We're in Indiana. Why? Because that's the primary on Tuesday. We're in Indianapolis talking to Barack Obama, Democratic candidate for president.Iraq and Iran, the administration, we have reported at NBC, are drawing up some plans for potential airstrikes in Iran at different missile weapons factories or special force compounds because we have indications, evidence that the Iranians are helping some of their supporters within Iraq to kill U.S. troops.

SEN. OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks in Iran?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let, let me not speculate yet. I want to, I want to take a, take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, what these plans are exactly. I've always said that, you know, as commander in chief, I don't take military options off the table and I think it's appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies. But let's look at the larger picture. Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, they are stronger because of our decision to go in; and what we have to do is figure out how are we going to recalibrate our strategic position in the region. I think that starts with pulling our combat troops out of Iraq. We have placed them in harm's way, we have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment, we are distracted from what's the real battle front that we need to focus on, which is Afghanistan and, and rooting out al-Qaeda. And if we put forward a plan where we are not going to be a permanent occupier in Iraq and we force the Iraqis to stand up and negotiate and come to a compromise that includes, by the way, a regional discussion with Iran, with Syria, as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and other regional powers, then I think we are going to be in a better posture to deal with the long-term threat of Iran and particularly its development of nuclear weapons. That's something that this administration has failed to do. I have consistently said that we've got to talk directly to Iran, send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq, but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezbollah, they've got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. There will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior. Those kinds of direct talks have not taken place. That's the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I'm president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said that a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could result in genocide. Would you factor that in? And if that began to emerge as an issue, would you stop the withdrawal?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, I would--of course I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we've talked about is a very deliberate and, and prudent approach to the withdrawal, one to two brigades per month. At that pace it would take about 16 months. Assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office, we're talking about potentially two years away. At that point we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years. And the danger we've got is that, with our military overstretched, with acknowledgement by our own Army officials that we don't have a strategic reserve right now to deal with other problems, we can't get more troops into Afghanistan, we're having trouble leveraging NATO to send in more troops in Afghanistan to deal with a growing Taliban and al-Qaeda threat, that unless we change postures in a deliberate fashion, our overall strategic posture in the region is going to be weaker. Now, I, I have said that even as we're withdrawing, we are going to continue to partner with the Iraqi government, to train their military. We're going to continue to partner with them on, on humanitarian issues. I think we can get the United Nations and the international community to be part of a process of monitoring that ensures that we're not seeing ethnic cleansing and genocide as we pull out. But what we can't do is sustain a long-term occupation in Iraq and expect to be able to deal with the other threats that exist in that neighborhood.

MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton was asked about if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel, and this is the answer she gave. Let's listen.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (From "Good Morning America") Well, the question was, "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?" And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. We would be able to totally obliterate them.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Obliterate them."

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of that language?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So--and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, "We shouldn't speculate about Iran." You know, "We've got to be cautious when we're running for president." She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language. But in terms of... terms of...

MR. RUSSERT: But would you...

SEN. OBAMA: ...in terms of...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you respond against Iran?

SEN. OBAMA: It--Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise. So--but it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton also called for an umbrella of deterrence in the Middle East, defending not only Israel, but she said "other countries in the region," suggesting that perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, other places in that region. Should the U.S. have an umbrella of deterrence to protect Arab nations?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, it--look, this is presupposing something that I'm unwilling to presuppose, and that is that Iran's going to get nuclear weapons. My intention is to make sure they don't. And the way we do that is, as I indicated before, to rally the international community, to engage direct talks with Iran, to send a clear signal about the consequences of continuing to develop nuclear weapons, but also to send a signal that if they are willing to stand down, that we can provide them with the kind of assistance that they need in order to help their people. So my central goal is to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. I, I'm troubled by the idea that, as a throwaway line in the debate, you start expanding the U.S. nuclear umbrella potentially to a whole host of other countries without any clear idea of what these criteria are, who might be involved and so forth. I think there's no doubt that we need to think about what our strategic posture is with respect to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other ally--other friends in the region. But, you know, right now we don't have a formal alliance with many of these other countries. And if we are to develop that, we should do it prudently, cautiously, in consultation with Congress.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the American people would want to send American men and women to Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iran?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, that's, I think, part of the debate that should be taking place. Obviously, we've got national security interests in oil supplies in the region. And as president, that's something that I would factor in. But I am not willing, at this point, to suggest that somehow we are going to extend our nuclear umbrella or that we have the same sorts of alliance with Saudi Arabia that we do with NATO countries or that we do with Israel.

MR. RUSSERT: Afghanistan. The situation, according to some, is deteriorating as the Taliban continues to reconstitute itself. Would you, as president, be willing to have a military surge in Afghanistan in order to, once and for all, eliminate the Taliban?

SEN. OBAMA: Yes. I think that's what we need. I think we need more troops there, I think we need to do a better job of reconstruction there. I think we have to be focused on Afghanistan. It is one of the reasons that I was opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place. We now know that al-Qaeda is stronger than any time since 2001. We've just received additional intelligence reports from our agencies, showing that they are growing in capability. That is something that we've got to address. And we're also going to have to address the situation in Pakistan, where we now have, in the federated areas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban setting up bases there. We now have a new government in Pakistan. We have an opportunity to initiate a new relationship. We've got to send a signal to them that we are interested in national security, but we also recognize they're interested in figuring out how do they feed their people and how do they prosper economically? And instead of just focusing on our issues, we've got to focus on some of theirs, so that we can get better cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda and make sure that that does not become a safe haven for them.