[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (CNN) ?Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: ?When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world?s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.?

Obama says the war in Iraq has left Americans more in danger than before 9/11.

?The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda?s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war,? Obama will say. ?He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq ? which didn?t exist before our invasion ? and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan.?

Despite the challenges, and potentially destabilizing effect U.S. military action inside Pakistan could create, Obama said it was important to remain enagaged there. ?There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again,? he will say. ?It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. [B]If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won?t act, we will.[/B]?

Obama also reiterated his disagreement with the Bush administration?s diplomatic posture. ?It?s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action,? he said. ?It?s time to turn the page on Washington?s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.? [/QUOTE]

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/[/url]

Well, certainly can't accuse him of taking a soft position. I'm sure this will generate loads of conversation amongst the candidates on both sides of the spectrum.

The part in bold is critical, I think. Sounds more like he's talking about discrete military strikes rather than creating an occupying force in northern Pakistan.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

He's definitely a bold statement maker, just says what's on his mind without seeing what voters want to hear. I like that. I liked that he said he'd meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, too, which shocked Hillary and a lot of people. Why not? Fuck it, go talk to them. Not talking to them will get you the same result you've always gotten.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

I'm tired of Obama. He's telling us nothing new and most of the things he recommends we're already doing or tried. Winning this war on terror isn't that easy. If it was as easy as he makes it sounds, this war would already be over. Obama isn't just going to come into power and suddenly the whole government including the adminstration, state department, CIA, military, and Congress say wow we were totally off base and he's got the answers.

Hillary called him naive and I think she's right. I think others see this and that's why she's ahead in the polls and rising.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

[quote=superdave;514256]IHe's telling us nothing new and most of the things he recommends we're already doing or tried.[/quote]

:lol: really?

Re: That's a Bold Statement

[QUOTE=superdave;514256] Hillary called him naive and I think she's right. I think others see this and that's why she's ahead in the polls and rising.[/QUOTE]

You know what, though? Hillary said the exact same thing a couple of months ago, that she would meet with those countries, without any mention of the preconditions that caused the spat between them. I'll see if I can track it down and post it.

...and although the polls don't mean diddly poo right now, Obama tied Clinton in the most recent American Research Group poll in NH and overtook her by 4 points in SC.

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html[/url]

Polls really and truly don't mean a thing at this stage and won't until we get around the holiday season, but to say that she's "rising" in the polls isn't really accurate. Gotta look at the states where there's active campaigning going on. She's rising in some states, falling in others.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

Ron Paul!

Re: That's a Bold Statement

If anyone's curious, here's the text of the entire speech:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_war_we_need_to_win.html[/url]

Re: That's a Bold Statement

FACT: the US and British troops will pull out or Iraq sooner or later since it's a lost cause (from day 1).

FACT: Taleban forces are regrouping in Afghanistan and gaining striking force by the week (just think of the 20 South Koreans who have been kidnapped a few weeks ago).

I don't have the answers, but cleaning out that region once and for all might be a smart call.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

I think the polls do matter. Campaign donors see them and want to back the front runner candidates. And voters see those polls and make decisions on who to vote for whether right or wrong. Regardless, I'd rather be ahead than behind.

Back to the bold statement - I'll bring up a couple of points. He mentions we'll act in Pakistan if they don't. That could mean a possible war with Pakistan or cause such a rift that the government is overthrown and creates a civil war.

He also says - we're getting out of Iraq. What about Al Qaeda in Iraq which we helped create? Also, if we leave completely, possibly Iran invades Iraq. Please elaborate Obama besides we're just leaving.

More troops in Afghanistan. Why would we be any more successful there than Iraq? The terrorists would go into Afghanistan to fight us. And why even go back there if the real terrorists according to him are in Pakistan?

Finally, he says we'll make partnerships to combat terrorism. What are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? They are partners in the war on terror. I guess Hezbollah and Iran are missing.

Too many questions. Until he gets serious with real ideas and strategy, I won't take him seriously and neither should anyone else.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

[quote=superdave;514399]Back to the bold statement - I'll bring up a couple of points. He mentions we'll act in Pakistan if they don't. That could mean a possible war with Pakistan or cause such a rift that the government is overthrown and creates a civil war.[/quote]Hahahahahahahahahahaha, does Iraq ring a bell? Dude, I know you're trying to be visonary/smart/whatever, but c'mon... [quote]More troops in Afghanistan. Why would we be any more successful there than Iraq? The terrorists would go into Afghanistan to fight us. And why even go back there if the real terrorists according to him are in Pakistan?[/quote]Because NATO still has the upper hand there? Really, shit is going to go down big time if we don't hammer down on the Taleban. Plus, where do you think Al Quaeda has a lot of training camps. Yup, connect the dots. [quote]Finally, he says we'll make partnerships to combat terrorism. What are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? They are partners in the war on terror. I guess Hezbollah and Iran are missing.[/quote]Har-dee-har, a significant of terrorist funding comes from Saoudi Arabia and under Musharaf the Afghan opium export rose to the stratosphere. What do you think that drug money is used for? [quote]Too many questions. Until he gets serious with real ideas and strategy, I won't take him seriously and neither should anyone else.[/quote]Sad to say mayben but I don't take any candidate seriously until I've seen what their actual foreign long term policy will be...

Re: That's a Bold Statement

[QUOTE=superdave;514399]I think the polls do matter. Campaign donors see them and want to back the front runner candidates. And voters see those polls and make decisions on who to vote for whether right or wrong. Regardless, I'd rather be ahead than behind. [/QUOTE]

Well, Obama is outraising Hillary -- and everyone else for that matter -- and doing it in a way that will allow him to continue raising money through primary season and the general election. Hillary has already tapped many of her donors -- especially the big ones -- for the maximum amount they can donate for the entire election, so that well is drying up for her. She technically won but still kinda lost the first quarter, got beat outright the second quarter, and from her own campaign's comments regarding Obama's fundraising efforts, I have no reason to believe that's going to change in the third or fourth quarter of the year.

Being ahead is obviously better than being behind, but many candidates do better when they can see the tail of the horse in front of them. He's certainly got a horse's ass in his sights, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=superdave;514399] Back to the bold statement - I'll bring up a couple of points. He mentions we'll act in Pakistan if they don't. That could mean a possible war with Pakistan or cause such a rift that the government is overthrown and creates a civil war.
[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind here that we're talking about a region of Pakistan that isn't even controlled by Musharraf. You'd think we were storming Islamabad or something, the way people have reacted to this. Moreover, if you read the whole thing it's very clear that Pakistan's role as an ally in this hunt is important -- in the very next sentence from the one that gets all the press, he's talking of sending more F-16s to Pakistan to help it combat extremism, and the speech as a whole makes it pretty clear that we're not talking about invading or going out of our way to provoke Pakistan -- just indicating that we'll do what we have to do to get bin Laden, with or without its assistance.

[QUOTE=superdave;514399] He also says - we're getting out of Iraq. What about Al Qaeda in Iraq which we helped create? Also, if we leave completely, possibly Iran invades Iraq. Please elaborate Obama besides we're just leaving. [/QUOTE]

This seems like a straw man-type argument. Is there anyone that thinks that leaving Iraq literally means that all of our troops will get out of Iraq today, and we'll just wash our hands of the whole deal? Everyone is aware that an exit from Iraq will require us to leave a certain number of troops there to deal with Al Qaeda. The bigger question is whether we keep enough troops there to try to police this civil war or not. My vote is no.

[QUOTE=superdave;514399] More troops in Afghanistan. Why would we be any more successful there than Iraq? The terrorists would go into Afghanistan to fight us. And why even go back there if the real terrorists according to him are in Pakistan?[/QUOTE]

Well, for one thing, if nothing else, Afghanistan is an appropriate staging ground. The other big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan though, is that the people in Afghanistan that are trying to kill us are actually pissed at us. There's a clearly defined enemy, something we lack in Iraq. Are we fighting the Shias? The Sunnis? Your guess is as good as mine, because it seems like both groups blow our guys up pretty regularly. We're not fighting in Iraq any more, we're trying to keep order between two (or three) pissed off groups that don't give a frog's green ass about the unity government we're trying to create. That's not fair to people who who are trained to be soldiers.

Also, we already got Afghanistan under control once. Or we didn't, and the claims that we did were just propaganda a la "Mission Accomplished." Take your pick.

[QUOTE=superdave;514399] Finally, he says we'll make partnerships to combat terrorism. What are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? They are partners in the war on terror. I guess Hezbollah and Iran are missing.
[/QUOTE]

I'll say this in all sincerity -- if there is one candidate amongst the pack that I actually think can help undo some of the damage we've done internationally since early 2003, it's Obama, tough talk notwithstanding. My opinion, take it for what it's worth.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

All good points made by KinkyJ and Toasty regarding my post. Let me expand on a few things.

My point is that the Middle East and battling terrorism is much more complicated than what Obama is saying. I don't expect him to solve the world's problems, but at least be realistic and not feed us Demoratic talking points.

Regarding Pakistan, again, if it was easy, wouldn't cause too much trouble, and knew where Bin Laden was then we would've killed him already. The situaton is much more dynamic than let's get him where he's holed up. And we can't just drop bombs from planes to get him. Clinton tried that 10 years ago with cruise missiles unsuccessfully. To my understanding, we've already got special forces in Pakistan and they're not successful.

Regarding Afghanistan, I don't think any army in history has been successful there. The Afghans ran the Russians out of that country.

Finally back to Iraq, if we pull our forces back from the cities. The terrorists will plan and group in Iraq just like they're doing in the remote areas of Pakistan.

These are my thoughts and who knows how the Middle East would react. George Bush and his adminstration sure as hell was wrong about Iraq.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

Well, it's definitely a highly complex situation, I'll give you that. Indeed, we've been toiling over it since early 2003, and with that in mind, I'm not going to fault someone for failing to detail, in an hour's time, a comprehensive plan for getting out of Iraq and refocusing our efforts elsewhere that takes into account all of the factors you've mentioned. The way that the message is delivered requires oversimplification, to some extent.

For me, it comes down to the question of who's on the right track and who's bringing the right approach to the problem. Personally, he's speaking my language.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

i would just like to add that bin laden is dead. figuratively and probably literally. naming him in any discussion is merely a talking point. i'll let the rest of you argue the other points over, nice job, good reads.

Re: That's a Bold Statement

[quote=KinKyJ;514397]

FACT: Taleban forces are regrouping in Afghanistan and gaining striking force by the week (just think of the 20 South Koreans who have been kidnapped a few weeks ago).

I don't have the answers, but cleaning out that region once and for all might be a smart call.[/quote]

FACT: Other friends in the EU ie Belguim, Germany, France, Holland etc are too fucking scared to fight in Afganistan, hence the Brits are outnumbered, lucky not out gunned.