Reporters and opinion makers are paid to make statements,
and so they shall opine...
Nothing wrong with that, but......
they are only speaking of their impression based on what they know as of this date,
and so I have no problem with what Helen and others believe right now,
as their thinking will change with the passage of time,
as I already understand that the same policies aren't being continued in either Iraq or Afghanistan,
no matter how it might look superficially, on its face.
I side with the more specific precise writing of this opinion than the generalities that Helen Thomas makes. Why? Because Helen Thomas, just like Barack Obama, is not an infallible person, and therefore facts and reasonability of the argument, rather than who is making it is what sways my opinion as to what's what:
ON IRAQ
I thought Obama's speech on Iraq this afternoon was outstanding.It laid out a powerful rationale for the new policy, sent a very clear signal to Iraqis about American intentions, placed American policy firmly within the context of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with the Iraqi government, and embedded the policy effectively into its wider regional context. I know that some on the left are worried about the 50,000 figure for the residual force and about the timeline, but I think those concerns are overblown.The plan Obama laid out today is entirely consistent with his campaign promises and -- more important -- is the right strategy for today's Iraq.
Here's what I liked:
The very clear signal. "The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility."Obama stressed repeatedly and clearly that he was bringing the war to an end -- "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end" -- and that all troops would leave Iraq in accord with the SOFA by December 31, 2011. Everything I've written over the last year has emphasized the importance of the clarity of this signal. This is more important than the specifics of the pace or number of troop withdrawals -- which are better handled by the military commanders and diplomats on the ground -- because it gets to shaping the political calculations of Iraqis and Iraq's neighbors. Obama did this extremely well today, taking pains to reiterate and to flag his signaling so that it could not be misinterpreted.
Iraqi responsibility.
Obama also did an outstanding job of framing the U.S. drawdown in terms of a shift to Iraqi responsibility: "The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility. The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people." This emphasis throughout the speech on the agency of Iraqis deserves particular attention and praise. Gone is the assumption that what happens in Iraq is all about America, that only the force of American will and material commitment matters.The future of Iraq is for Iraqis to decide, not Americans.
Public diplomacy. Obama's decision to speak directly to the Iraqi people -- and not only to Iraqi leaders -- was brilliantly conceived and executed. His very clear statement that the U.S. had no aspirations on Iraqi territory or resources -- no permanent bases -- was pitch perfect. And I just really liked this frank, direct, respectful talk:
So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations."Realistic goals. Last September Brian Katulis and I argued that "the United States will have to distinguish between those outcomes that are truly catastrophic and those that are simply suboptimal." Obama did so clearly today: "What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals." This, combined with the emphasis on Iraqi responsibility, demonstrates a very healthy realism about the enterprise which has too often been lacking from American rhetoric.
Respecting the SOFA. Obama referred repeatedly to the Status of Forces Agreement, which others have preferred to ignore or wish away.
Regional context. He correctly placed Iraq within its wider regional context: "America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities".His commitment to direct engagement with all Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran, singled out -- and higher expectations for their positive contributions fits well within his strategic vision for the region. With the Arab states unifying their ranks ahead of next month's Doha Summit, and Kuwait's Foreign Minister paying a historic visit to Baghdad today, I expect significant movement here in the near term.
Refugees. I was heartened to hear Obama put such prominence on the issue of Iraq's displaced and refugees, and to define their plight as both a strategic interest and a moral responsibility for the United States.
No plan is perfect. I would like to have heard more about the pace of troop withdrawals, particularly in the early going. The role of the residual force could have been better explained. But I must say that I am far less concerned about the size of the residual forces than are others on the Left. Such a residual force was always a part of Obama's campaign platform, and -- more importantly -- is perfectly consistent with the Status of Forces Agreement, which does not require U.S. troops to leave until the end of 2011. Their mission will change, and they will play an important role in training and support for the Iraqi government and security forces. Nor am I at all bothered by the two month difference between the campaign promise and the timeline in the speech -- and can't imagine that anybody else is either.
Obama's speech today was all that I had hoped, especially after yesterday's conflicting reports. It very closely follows his campaign commitments.It maintains a clear timeline for withdrawal, and sends the clear, unambiguous signal that Iraqis and the region needed to hear while re-emphasizing America's commitment to engagement with the region. It puts Iraqis first and defines a normal, positive future relationship between governments and peoples. And it does this with a frank recognition of Iraq's continuing fragility and plethora of unresolved political fissures, and the tough road ahead. And most remarkable of all, he may even succeed in commanding a bipartisan and inter-agency consensus in support of this policy at home.
This speech is something for which I and many, many others have been waiting -- and working -- for a long, long time. There's much hard work to come, but the die is cast and the signal is clear.
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/27/obama_gets_it_right_on_iraq On Afghanistan, Obama certainly is not like Bush, and while saying it makes some pay attention, it is an incorrect statement as far as I'm concerned.
.... Obama's tone toward the rest of the world has been one of humility and engagement, such as when he told the Muslim world that America is not its enemy, and that the United States "is not at war with Islam."
Daniel Hamilton, director of the U.S. Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, believes Obama’s pragmatic message has been well received abroad.
“His message has been
the United States doesn’t always do everything right, there’s some reason for some of the critique," Hamilton says. "But on the other hand, you can’t blame the United States for all the world’s problems, or even a region’s problems, and let’s have a new basis for a relationship.”
Critics, however, have taken Obama to task, especially on his recent European tour, for what they describe as his apologizing for U.S. behavior over the past eight years. Former Vice President Dick Cheney went so far as to say he believes Obama's policies and actions have made the country less safe.
snip
On Afghanistan, Obama ordered a comprehensive review of U.S. and allied efforts in the region and concluded that more countries need to offer military and development assistance.
....He has also pressed European leaders to shoulder more of the responsibility for stabilizing the region, and has made a compelling case for why Afghanistan’s fate is tied to the fates of other countries.
Obama also made a dramatic adjustment to the U.S. strategy on Afghanistan by bringing Pakistan into the equation, and appointing a high-ranking U.S. diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, as U.S. envoy to the two countries.
Obama and his military advisers argue that without help from Pakistan, the problem of terrorist safe havens in Afghan border lands cannot be solved.
snip
“It’s been a frustrating period of time for him. A lot hasn’t happened yet. And many of the overtures were rebuffed immediately or used for domestic political purposes in the midst of the Iranian campaign," Hamilton says. "I think we’ll just have to acknowledge that, and see how the election campaign ends and what type of Iranian leadership we have to work with.”
On Iraq, Obama came into office on a promise to end U.S. combat activities in Iraq within 18 months. He has since moved that date back a few months -- to August 2010 -- and said he will keep as many as 50,000 troops in place to advise and train Iraqi forces through the end of 2011.
On the stalled Middle East peace process, Obama has appointed the experienced negotiator George Mitchell to be his envoy and sent Clinton to the region in a show of good faith. He has invited the Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian leaders to the White House this summer for peace talks, and reached out to longtime U.S. adversary Syria as a potential partner.
http://www.rferl.org/content/With_First_100_Days_Obama_Seeks_New_Basis_For_Relationships_Abroad/1618285.html
An alternative approach gaining favor inside the beltway is bottom-up negotiations to mirror the Taliban's village-by-village strategy. "This is a country that historically has had very little central government," General David McKiernan, the US commander, said last November. "But it's a government with a history of local autonomy and local tribal authority systems." Jones, of Rand, says the key is winning the loyalty of rural Afghans. If it's done right—if America maintains a light footprint, if tribal leaders see improvements in security (as well as cold, hard cash), and if Afghanistan's meddling neighbors can be persuaded to help stabilize the country—then the loyalties of the Pashtun tribes may turn. If that happens, Jones says hopefully, "They can tip pretty quickly." Of course, if the surge causes more civilian deaths and further inflames anger at the United States, they could just as easily tip the other way. Therein lies the great risk of Obama's gamble.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/obamas-great-afghanistan-gambleObama breaks with Bush Afghan policyThe tone differed significantly when discussing the threat from militants and the rationale behind continuing America's involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There was no "you're either with us or against us", no cowboy-like "we'll smoke them out of their holes", just a simple, stern message to al-Qaeda that "we will defeat you".
He signalled that Washington was in it together with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that the extremists the US was fighting were as much a threat to America as they were to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The hope is that by framing it in those terms, Washington will be appealing to the governments of the two countries and to ordinary people to stay on board in the fight against militancy. It could resonate beyond the region as well to Muslims elsewhere in the world,
Under the Bush administration, the fight against al-Qaeda and the stabilisation of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban was neglected as Washington focused on the war in Iraq.
Mr Obama said Afghanistan had been denied the resources it needed for the last three years as he promised to commit more in terms of development projects and training for Afghan forces.
By approaching Afganistan and Pakistan with one strategy, while recognising that they are two different countries, the Obama administration also acknowledges that any success in Afghanistan would be undermined if violence spiralled in Pakistan and vice versa.
The Bush administration's approach to the two countries had been described as unco-ordinated, and sometimes even at odds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7969071.stm So for me the verdict is not in yet as to the effectiveness of what Obama has done to date, but I can safely say that I don't believe that President Obama is doing anything much like President Bush did, which is why I cannot agree with Helen's contention.
So thanks for providing us with a vague rendition of what Ms. Helen Thomas thinks, but unfortunately for you and her, there isn't enough meat on those bones she is providing for me to go with what she thinks as of this date just because she is Helen Thomas. I'm more independent in my thinking than that!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
