Obama Shifts The Foreign Policy Debate

Washington Post Analysis: Candidate Moves Focus From Iraq To Broader Issues

(Washingtonpost.com)  This analysis was written by Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman.

---

Sen. Barack Obama, on his first and likely only overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has remade the campaign's foreign policy playing field, neatly sidestepping Republican charges that he has been naive and wrong on Iraq and moving to a broader, post-Iraq focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In essence, Obama has declared the war in Iraq all but over. "There is security progress," he said during yesterday's news conference in Amman, Jordan. "Now we need a political solution." While a diminished U.S. force under his presidency would continue to protect U.S. personnel, target terrorists and provide training, he said, it would be up to Baghdad to consolidate the victory by "setting up a government that is working for the people."

Two days spent in Afghanistan and two days in Iraq, Obama said, reinforced his belief that it is time for the United States to move on. Calling the situation in Afghanistan "perilous and urgent," he said both U.S. military and Afghan government officials agree that "we must act now to reverse a deteriorating situation."

Obama's analysis has been buttressed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders who, to the dismay of the White House and Sen. John McCain, his Republican opponent, have publicly agreed with his call for completing a U.S. combat withdrawal from Iraq in 2010.

McCain argues that the United States is succeeding in Iraq -- although the war is still not over -- because of last year's "surge" of U.S. troops, which Obama opposed. McCain's aides and surrogates continued that theme yesterday, accusing Obama of what Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) called "a complete inability to acknowledge that the surge worked."

But the Iraqi government's newly stated position on troop withdrawals has put the McCain campaign -- and many congressional Republicans who have been on record opposing timelines -- in a difficult position.

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, told reporters on a campaign conference call that the senator would gauge the proper level of U.S. troops in Iraq according to security conditions on the ground and the advice of U.S. military commanders. He made no mention of the views of Iraq's elected government.

But Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a reliable opponent of withdrawal timelines, was not as dismissive. "If we're going to crow about the fact that 12 million [Iraqis] voted and elected their own leadership, we have to pay attention to their leadership," he said. "We can't have it both ways. We should say we're heading for the door."

Some Republicans questioned the value of anything Maliki said, recalling that even senior Democrats last summer labeled him an inept leader and called for his ouster. "I find it interesting that Prime Minister Maliki is now the person to go to," said Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Others insisted that Maliki's statements were designed for domestic consumption in Iraq -- which has scheduled provincial elections for December -- and did not reflect his government's true feelings. In private, said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Iraqi leaders continue to tell U.S. officials that they want and need U.S. forces to stay. But Davis admitted that because of Maliki's comments, "there are some members who feel, because of what is happening out there, a little hung out to dry."

In the Democratic primary campaign, Obama frequently noted that he had opposed the Iraq war before it began and criticized McCain's support of the 2003 invasion. But yesterday he largely ignored the question of whether he was against last year's troop buildup, except to say that "we don't know what would have happened" if his plan to begin a phased withdrawal last year had been implemented.

Although the White House has tended to describe the "surge" as the decisive factor in the sharp decline in violence in Iraq, others -- including many in the U.S. intelligence community and the military -- have said the drop was the combined result of a Shiite militia cease-fire and the rejection of al-Qaeda-allied insurgents by Sunni tribal leaders, as well as the deployment of more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

Obama referred to a withdrawal timeline as something now largely agreed upon by both the U.S. and Iraqi governments, saying he welcomes "the growing consensus."

---

CBS News anchor Katie Couric spoke exclusively Tuesday to Obama in Amman and to McCain in New Hampshire via satellite.
Click to see the full transcript of Couric's interview with Obama | Full video.
Click to see the full transcript of Couric's interview with McCain | Full video.

---

He was effusive in his praise of U.S. troops and diplomats, describing the "terrific" conversation he had with Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, who took him on a helicopter tour over the Iraqi capital. Obama said he understands that Petraeus would prefer leaving his options open rather than operating with a timeline, and said if he were in Petraeus's shoes, "I'd probably feel the same way."

But in an indirect dig at President Bush, who has repeatedly said he would base any withdrawal decisions on the advice of military commanders, Obama said his job would be to listen to the military but make decisions based on "a range of factors that I have to take into account as a commander in chief."

Those factors, he said, would include "the perceptions of the Iraqi people" and the statements of their leaders, as well as "the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan," which he called the "central front in the war against terrorism."

McCain's judgments are based on "what he thinks makes the most sense," Obama said. But his own judgments, "in speaking with Afghans and Iraqis, the U.S. military and civilians," he said, led him to conclude that there is a need to "seize this moment to make America more secure" by focusing on "broader challenges."

Chief among them, he said, are the "need to refocus attention on Afghanistan and to go after the Taliban, including putting more troops on the ground, and to put more pressure on Pakistan to deal with the safe havens of terrorists."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, in an interview last night with PBS's "NewsHour," said he shares Obama's assessment that the situation in Afghanistan is "precarious and urgent." The 10,000 additional troops needed there, he said, would not be available "in any significant manner" unless there are withdrawals from Iraq.

For now, he said, "my priorities . . . given to me by the commander in chief are: Focus on Iraq first. It's been that way for some time. Focus on Afghanistan second."

[aldon61]

While Obana is not really my favorite, I don''''t want him to get killed by Bush death squads.

let''''s learn lessons from Robert Kenedy in 1968''''s killed by R.Nixon and Bhutto in Pakistan killed by G.Bush.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lambor59 at 04:09 AM : Jul 24, 2008

Little paranoid, ain''t cha buddy? Bhutto was very much pro-western and Bush would have thought of her as an ally. She was killed by an islamic extremist, just like Robert Kennedy was. Don''t get me wrong, I hated Nixon and despise George Bush, but neither one of them had these people killed. Get a grip man!

[ariel133]

Dems think they are being brave by supporting a liberal who wants to change everything , and yet, does not define anything, that is being stupid. Dems are not brave by thinking this way, they are naive to think that someone will magically change all the bad and make it good- How is that possible with someone soinexperianced and ego driven? How is that possible with someone who does not want to win the war on terror but win only the election because of race? How is change possible if Dems do not accept they are wrong,too. Bottom line, nothing will change, with Obama, that is fact. MCCAIN will win in spite of all the media''''s blantant self righteous attention it is giving to the wrong man. Come fall, it will all change- drastically, Watch & learn.

[ariel133]

No SANE person would ever remotely consider Barack Obama until the media suggested it in such a manner where those who don''''t think for themselves have something to cling to- a contrived and despicable media that could have been gleaned directly from a promotion for a movie- that will die quietly when the fizzle ends- ZOMBIE zealots like the media that have polarized this nation with irrational lies and distortions of the political philosophies of certain news personalities and their insane programs. MCCAIN 2008. The ONLY CHOICE.

[lambor59]

While Obana is not really my favorite, I don''t want him to get killed by Bush death squads.

let''s learn lessons from Robert Kenedy in 1968''s killed by R.Nixon and Bhutto in Pakistan killed by G.Bush.

[lambor59]

Obama or McCain? both are stupid one way or the other.

[allurfears]

THIS ARTICLE QUOTES MCCAIN CHIEF FOREIGN POLICY and NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER RANDY SCHEUNEMANN

McCAIN SENIOR ADVISER SCHEUNEMANN IS TIED TO LATEST BUSH ADMINISTRATION BRIBERY SCANDAL

Randy Scheunemann took $160,000 from Stephen Payne. Payne was caught ON TAPE last week SELLING ACCESS to Bush and Administration officials IN EXCHANGE for CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BUSH LIBRARY. Payne said he would arrange meetings with Dlck Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and other senior officials in return for a payment of $250,000 towards the library in Texas. Scheunemann and Associates represented Payne in his overseas lobbying. At an taped undercover meeting last week, Payne said Scheunemann had been %u201Cworking with me on my payroll for five of the last eight years%u201D.


Payne, claims to have raised more than $1m for the Republican party in recent years

Payne travelled with Bush and Cheney on multiple overseas trips.

Payne is on the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Payne agreed a $2m deal with the Kazakh government to arrange a visit by Cheney to the central Asian country. Cheney then went to Khazakstan and lavished PRAISE on the dictatorial regime of "President" Nazarbayev.

C-B-S won''t allow links to other news organizations (they remove the post). Go to timesonline-dot-co-dot-uk.

[dnsallday]

did obama forget his bottle of Hair Color at home?
the other day hair was off black, then brown very recently and now he''''s looking heavy salt pepper graying

Posted by fenner
******************************************************
The thinking folks don''t care what color Obama''s hair is.

[rltw175b]

once again and again and again, mccain makes a huge gaffe where he mixes up & ignores facts while attacking obama

[clemenhagen1]

McCain and Bush have consistently presented the surge as a straw-man argument: the surge won the war and thus was proven to be the effective choice. Obama has sought to show a bigger picture, and contrary to Katie Couric and her microscopic view, if you stop and listen he makes a great deal of sense.

A. The surge is not singularly responsible for the decrease in violence: the ethnic cleansing that occured prior to surge removed the need; Sunnis in Iraq turned against al-Qaeda, in part because we paid them to do so. Bribing Sunni warlords to cease and desist merely reveals the fact that Iraq WAS NEVER the central front against terror in the first place. The Sunnis who supported Saddam were always secularists and they only allowed al-Qaeda in as long as they blew up Shiites for them. The Iraqis will simply not allow al-Qaeda to operate there, especially if the UNITED STATES LEAVES.

B. Obama thus continues the argument that continued troop presence in Iraq, as well as the 10 to 12 billion a month, actually detract from U.S. security interests, especially in Afghanistan. In addition, that 10 to 12 billion could certainly be used to help deal with the on-going economic crisis in this country. I would certainly agree that the economic crisis in this country (energy, health, housing, etc.) poses the single greatest threat to the security of working-class Americans anyway.

[mr2258]

I''M glad Obama took this trip.We got to see what a fake he really is.Now he has no chance to win election.

[future121]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, in an interview last night with PBS''s "NewsHour," said he shares Obama''s assessment that the situation in Afghanistan is "precarious and urgent." The 10,000 additional troops needed there, he said, would not be available "in any significant manner" unless there are withdrawals from Iraq.

For now, he said, "my priorities . . . given to me by the commander in chief are: Focus on Iraq first. It''s been that way for some time. Focus on Afghanistan second."

Bush''s focus is on Iraq. As leader he guides the miliary to focus there. Obama would focus on Afganistan. I think Obama is right. Our present leadership is and has been wrong way too often in not miltary but foreign affairs, and domestic. WE need the change Obama will give. What is worng with an intelligent President for a change? One who can carry a sentance correctly.

[likeitis5050]

Why bother with an election. Can''t someone just appoint Obama king of America?

[akhajawall]

Dear American Citizens and the Press

As a concerned citizen, I consider it is my duty to bring following message to you all.

"We the citizens of the United States of America have the ultimate responsibility to elect the " Right Candidate" to lead our nation, out of our huge present and future internal and external challenges as well as opportunities. This is to prevent depression and isolation in-spite of being the only superpower in the world morally, democratically, economically, and militarily.

We need to consider the "critical qualities and characteristics" of our presumptive presidential nominees at the time we vote.

In my personal and professional opinion the critical considerations are as under:


1. Calm, cool, and collected " temper " [ Presidential Temperament ].
2. Sound and sustained "Judgment and Caliber".
3. "Thought-fullness and togetherness" of purpose and positions.
4. Minimum "ex-poser and exploitation" around "Washington and Washington insiders".
5. Renewed " Vigor and Vision " for our Greatgrand Nation.
6. Foreign policy based on " American Values, Virtuous, Vastness".

Stay informed, stay involved, and stay engaged. Do not allow some partisan media, pundits, pollsters, and perpetual political opinion makers effect your vote in the wrong direction.

Don''t be effected and duped by "Psychological Terrorism" that is afflicted upon you all the time.

Long live U.S.A and its diverse but democratic people.

[grahampoor]

Obama had it right when it really counted, before we got tricked into fighting in what McCain and Bin Laden call "The central front in the war on terror" Iraq.

If Osama Bin Laden said "The central front in the war on terror" was Antarctica would McCain agree and surge troops there too and leave Osama Bin Laden to plan another attack?
Maybe the surge worked, I am still with Obama that those 20,000 troops would have made America safer if they were working to deny Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist a safe place to make their tapes, laugh at us and plan their next move.

McCain and Bush let Bin Laden get away with killing 3000 Americans by pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

Judge for yourselves if we would have had a better chance of getting Bin Laden with Obama as President in 2002:
barackobama.com/judgment

Make your vote firsthand information and clarity.
The one who was right in 2002 should be President in 2008.
God Bless America and God Bless You...

[realpatriot1]

Obama moves the debate to broader issues because he''s a leader with a realistic vision of the world.

McCain, like Bush, is fixated by Iraq and Iran to the exclusion of the larger context.

A forest fire isn''t controlled when the flames are doused unless the mebers are also put out. In order to win the war on terror we need to combat the extremists on the battlefiled concurrent with offering realistic hope to the majority of people in the middle east who want peace with justice.

We need to reverse the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, bolster efforts to develop the Afghan economy,expect much more from Pakastan, and be aggressively involved from Day 1 in brokering progress between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.