Obama Says That His First Action as President Would be to Bring U.S. Troops Home from Iraq

Most people are applauding President Barack Obama for his plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2010. The timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq was a very big topic during the run up to the presidential election. Both candidates acknowledged the need to get the ball rolling on troop withdrawal, but it was President Obama that explicitly stated his goal to cut defense spending and get our troops back home as soon as possible. Obama has some worried with the planned cut in defense spending, but he’s also mentioned that he’d like to give members of the services a pay raise, which would be helpful in this economy. The decrease in spending by completing the troop withdrawal would certainly free up a lot of cash.

“Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?
A: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.” - Obama

We voted in the Demo's and look at where we are! NOWHERE! We counted on them to change the course yet we are still going down the path to doom! If we're not already there!! I'm REALLY afraid of what will happen in the next election! I'm hoping that all the people that either didn't get a chance to vote or don't vote at all will get the chance this time around and make a difference. Let's try to make this one count! Even if we don't really have any control over it. Let's not let "them" get away with any crap this time around!!
If you're not already pissed, then you haven't been paying attention!!

Doubtful.

He is re-THUG-lican lite, as is the hillmonster.

If I want to vote re-THUG-lican I'll choose one from their side of the menu - not ours.

Kucinich all the way baby. If not him EDWARDS!!!!

I don't care for a candidate that STILL thinks you can play nice with re-THUGS, and still sides with them....read my lips hillary and obama.

"But if elected will he deliver?"

"We'll see to it!"

"As far as the claim that he lacks experience, Obama pointed out that if he lacks experience how is he out organizing political campaigns that have been running for years.
A good point indeed."

He's not out there organizing anything, he has staffers to that and I'll bet they're older than he is and maybe the Clintons too.
He still lacks experience and by his next statement of bringing home the troops the first thing, is a big laugh too! Of course he further adds he'll take the "first" steps to bringing them home. How many steps is he anticapating anyway??

A commenter earlier said that Obama represented "crappy healthcare" compared to Hillary? Ah, excuse me, but who among the candidates on either side of the aisle has taken in more campaign contributions from corporate health care entities? The startling answer is that Hillary has. Hillary is all about herself. She could give a rat's cheney about you or me. Its all about winning and all about the way things were in 1993. Dennis Kucinich is the only real democrat running on our ticket. Unfortunately the MSM doesn't take him seriously so we are stuck with Hillary and Obama and the good old boy from North Carolina whose campaign is run by and spoken for by his wife.

That, in fact, is exactly what Hillary has said she will do for more than a year. Oh, but Obama means "hope." That, and crappy healthcare.

Note to Iowa: Only One Top Dem Will End Iraq Occupation
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on January 3, 2008, Printed on January 5, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72344/

According to the National Journal, the Democratic candidates' "disputes over issues have almost completely evaporated in the campaign's final days." The leading Dems, according to the Journal, are beating each other up over who has the most effective "leadership style" or similar abstractions. The notion that the top candidates are virtually identical on the issues and vary only in "tone" -- with Clinton the voice of experience and pragmatism, Obama the feel-good "uniter" who can heal a divided country and John Edwards the aggressive economic populist -- has become, to some degree, the conventional wisdom of campaign 2008.

But, as is often the case, it's also simply wrong.

While it's true that the big three have similar stances on a number of issues, on Iraq -- the one that Democrats and swing voters say is either their top concern, or No. 2 after the economy -- the top candidates' differences couldn't be more significant. In fact, only John Edwards among the top three Dems would effectively end the occupation of Iraq within a year of taking office.

All three top candidates certainly sound like they'd end it. In a Sept. 26 debate, Barack Obama said that if elected, "the first thing" he would do is "initiate a phased redeployment." "Military personnel," he continued, "indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq."

Hillary Clinton also says she favors ending the war in Iraq, "not next year, not next month -- but today." The right strategy in Iraq, she said, is to "start bringing home America's troops now." Just like Barack Obama, "one of Hillary's first official actions" in office, according to her campaign website, would be "to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her secretary of defense, and her National Security Council" and "direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting" within the first 60 days after her inauguration.

Sadly, both candidates are trying to get away with a bit of sleight-of-hand: Both are attempting to confuse a troop draw-down (or, in Clinton's case, appointing a commission to plan one) with an end to the occupation of Iraq. In reality, the two are as different as night and day.

Both Clinton and Obama have bought into the dangerous idea that the U.S. must maintain forces in Iraq to protect U.S. bases -- yes, they're actually saying that we need to leave soldiers to guard the bases that the U.S. built to house the troops occupying Iraq -- to fight "al Qaeda in Iraq," and to help train Iraqi forces. Obama has said that he envisions a less expansive mission than Clinton does, and would contemplate basing some of his "residual forces" outside the country. Both of the candidates are reluctant to say exactly how many troops would be needed to accomplish the job, but independent estimates range from at least 20,000 to as many as 75,000 soldiers. John Edwards stated the obvious when he told the New York Times: "To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq."

Only two candidates have proposed a complete pullout of U.S. troops: Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. But John Edwards has come very close to their position, saying that he'd only train Iraqi troops outside of Iraq and leave no troops to "guard U.S. bases." And, while he'd keep a rapid-response force in the region, it too would remain outside the country's borders. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he's put a hard number on what he thinks is necessary to keep in-country -- only a single "brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers." He'd pull the rest out within ten months.

Both Clinton and Obama have refused to commit to ending the "mission" before 2013. It's not about training Iraqi troops; it's about the two trying to win an election while continuing to support a deeply unpopular occupation. "Training" security forces doesn't require more than ten years to complete, and it's only the presence of U.S. troops on Iraq's soil that allows "Al Qaeda in Iraq" to operate in the first place. It's a simple matter of two candidates who want to have their cake and eat it too, and for the most part the commercial media's helped obscure that crucial fact.

Clinton and Obama's camps would deny that they favor continuing the "war" in Iraq, but that debate is irrelevant. Nothing could matter less than whether American politicians believe leaving a "residual force" of several tens of thousands of U.S. troops is a continuation of the military occupation or not.

Only Iraqis' opinions matter, because it's Iraqis who make up the insurgency and because all insurgencies require some support from the communities in which they operate. Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, has polled Iraqis repeatedly since 2004. He told me recently that "more than three-quarters of those Iraqis we polled believe the U.S. plans to establish permanent bases in Iraq," and "it appears that view is closely related to support for attacks on U.S. troops." In fact, he said, "among those who believe the U.S. will withdraw, just 34 percent favor attacks against U.S. troops, but among those who believe the U.S. will not withdraw, 68 percent favor attacking coalition forces."

In other words, talk of a long-term presence in Iraq "emboldens extremists" and gets people killed. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they'd withdraw all "combat troops" from Iraq, but the truth is that they've aligned themselves with the Bush administration's plan for an enduring, relatively large-scale military presence in the country for the foreseeable future.

One hopes Iowans grasp that there's a lot more separating the leading Dems than just "tone."

Note: A correction was made to this article after publication.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/72344/

Why does Buzzflash push Obama? And, why doesn't someone ask Obama Michael Moore's question - "And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates." Obama's record speaks for itself - vote for Edwards and real change. He was cheated out of the vice presidency in 2004, he deserves the chance to run and win in 2008.

Ya know what you'll get if he's elected???

An "Obama-Nation"

I'll believe it if and when I see it.

Martin's question perpetuates one of the grossest misconceptions that have marked the Bush era- The president is the "commander in chief" of the armed forces, not the commander in chief of the United States of America.

The repeated emphasis on the role of "commander-in-chief" serves to reconceptualize America as a militarized society. Kevin Baker treated this subject in the October 2003 Harper's essay "We're in the Army Now."

Conservatives would like all citizens to embody the same obedience to the "commander in chief" that soldiers must have. But no president is my "commander in chief," because I'm not in the military. The president is my employee, and I want him to know his place.

So, he has changed his tune in order to win more votes...

He said:

• He hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but made no pledge. (Sep 2007)
• Troops are not dying in vain, but we need plans for success. (Jul 2007)
• Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region. (Mar 2007)
• We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there. (Oct 2004)
• Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)
• Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)
• Invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)

Etc.

Furthermore, he:

• Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)

He seems to change opinions like a weatherbane.

it is very difficult to believe that Obama will be any more effective in ending our Iraq occupation than Hillary would be, because he is far too much just like her. Let us hope that Edwards remain viable long enough for Democratic voters to realize that neither of them would be the President we now need.