Monday, Senator Barack Obama delivered his first speech on foreign policy agenda during his campaign for president before the Chicago Council of World Affairs. It was the first of what is to be a series of speeches over the next several weeks on the issues of foreign policy and international affairs which Obama hopes to use to increase awareness and understanding of his stances on such matters, as well as to improve his sense of experience and credibility among the American people. (transcript of the speech can be found here).
Obama used the speech to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy moves over the past six years, saying that "This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more." He spoke of the perceived decrease in the status of the United States around the world. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."
He used the speech to again criticize the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, reiterating that he opposed this decision in 2002 "not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light."
In the speech, Obama laid out a 5-point plan by which he would improve America's standing around the world. He explained that the effort to renew the US's power and prestige around the globe "will require a new spirit not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence." He also added that it will require new leadership in the White House, a new day for the nation.
The 5-point plan:
1.) Bringing about an end to the War in Iraq and refocusing on the challenges the US faces in the Middle East.
- Obama has the strongest position on Iraq of any presidential candidate. He is the only person, other than Dennis the Menace Kucinich, who openly opposed the war before the invasion. I have been unsure about my feelings on the war for a few years. Like Obama, I too opposed the war before we entered Iraq. I went on the record, albeit in a considerably less public manner, by writing a column in my high school newspaper in 2002 and giving a speech in Public Square downtown during a rally against the war in early March of 2003. Since that point, however, I have been hesitant to draw a conclusion. The problems we face are apparent and almost certainly unsolvable. As Obama said in his speech, " there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions." This war has developed in a manner similar to Vietnam (a point which I will cover at a later date.) But in Vietnam, the situation was actually better in a many ways. Whereas in the Vietnam civil war we had the support and backing of the established, but worthless and corrupt South Vietnamese government, in Iraq we do not have the support of either faction. We have the backing of the Iraqi government and the Iraq security forces, but these are weak and ineffective; much of the nation, the most militant and active sects at least, give their allegiance to sectarian militia leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr. The Sunni triangle is still a state of absolute chaos, regardless of the surge. Monday was one of the bloodiest days in Baghdad since the start of the war; at least 150 civilians died. Our response is to build a wall. Wonderful. While we still have the hearts and minds of most Iraqis, this seems to stem from the fact that they fear the consequences of our withdrawal. Unfortunately, Iraq has become a quagmire that it appears only the Iraqis can settle among themselves. This nation has always been one dominated more by clan politics and tribal allegiance, rather than by national unity or patriotism. I saw a stat in a New York Times which said that around 50% of Iraqis marry their first cousin. This included Saddam Hussein. Because of this tightly-knit culture in Iraq, building a broad coalition is a monumental task that the administration never considered. It is one that - it pains me to say - may take a man with the authoritarian power of will like Saddam. I fear that we may never truly be able to democratize Iraq. It is a noble effort, and one that we cannot simply abandon; thus comes the source of my moral dilemma on this issue.
I have begun to come around the Obama and some other Democrats' viewpoint on this. Obama has called for a phased re-deployment of US forces to areas just outside of the region. He has called for "an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists." I feel that this is ultimately our best option. We need to leave some troops - to place an arbitrary number on it, 25,000 - in Iraq to attempt to keep the peace and to fight off the homicidal efforts of insurgents. We also need to put troops on the borders to Iran and Syria in order to prevent the influx of insurgents into the nation. In addition, we need to increase our naval and aerial presence in the Persian Gulf, both as a warning to deter attempts to overthrow the al-Maliki government, as well as to deter any further militaristic aims of the crazy ass Iranian government. In my opinion, the Obama plan is the best option for this. I trust his leadership abilities, and I believe that he will react accordingly should the situation on the ground dictate doing so.
2.) Increasing the size and strength of the US military to meet the demands of the 21st century and use wisdom and discretion in our military policy.
- Bingo again, Barack. As Obama pointed out in his speech, while the administration continues to pronounce they support the troops and condemn any dissidents as hurting the military and emboldening the terrorists, their actions have not backed up their talk. As we were entering Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld and co. were cutting the size of the Veterans' Administration, i.e. they were cutting funding and decreasing staffing and services to a department that handles the affairs of soldiers as we were sending tens of thousands of soldiers overseas. Brilliant. Add to this the lack of body army and vehicle armaments, Abu Ghraib, the Walter Reed scandal, Rummy's "you go to war with the army you have" statement, etc. and you have a recipe for disaster and hypocrisy. Obama gave some damning statistics. "Two-thirds of the Army is now rated 'not ready' for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency." Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan - all of these have demonstrated the fact that the American military is stretched too thin and cannot answer the call to solve all the problems facing the world. Our position of leadership is at risk. Thus, Barack Obama has called for the addition of 65,000 soldiers to the Army, 27,000 to the Marines, and an increased focus on recruiting specialists who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, and Korean, among other skills. Fewer than 1% of our military can speak these languages, the languages of our enemies and our much-needed allies. That's pathetic.
3.) An increased effort to secure and destroy nuclear weapons around the globe, as well as a greater movement towards nuclear non-proliferation.
- To quote liberally from the speech:
"There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market."
Obviously there is a serious issue here. Terrorists all around the globe are salivating to get their hands on those kinds of weapons. If any of you watch 24, I don't have to remind you of the show's depiction of the threat we face from terrorists detonating a suitcase nuke on American soil. There was also a British documentary a few years ago that showed what might happen if a "dirty bomb" went off in London. It was a chaotic, horrific scene that, if we don't take further action to stop, could end up happening in New York, LA, Washington, Chicago, or somewhere else. I have seen and heard about the places Homeland Security considers to be in the gravest danger. I have heard the assessments. I'm sorry, Secretary Chertoff, but Iowa and Indiana are not where we should be focusing our efforts. Maybe you want to rethink that?
4.)Prevent other nations, i.e. Iran and Syria, from joining the Nuclear Club by increasing fuel stores and leading by example.
We need to develop greater fuel stores to provide these nations with alternatives to nuclear power. I don't know about you, but setting up a few thousand solar panels in Damascus and Tehran sounds a HELL of a lot better to me than a few more nuclear reactors in Ahmadinejad's hands. That dude is scary. This will involve, wait for it, a better energy policy! See how it all comes around like that?! Not only will increased investment in alternative fuels and carbon-neutral options decrease the development of global warming, it will improve our national security worldwide. What a concept.
And, as Obama said, if we want to deter these nations from joining the Nuclear Club, it's hard to do so when we keep creating new types of nuclear weapons like candy. You can't speak from a platform when you are buried up to your neck. In addition to giving us credibility on this issue, Obama's policy plans would also increase our sway over Iran and North Korea by reconciling us with the international community and re-establishing our firm hold on power throughout the world.
5.) He said it better than I can, so: "invest in our common humanity to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow."
- All around the world, the poor and disenfranchised are yearning for America's help. The voices of 400,000 dead in Darfur clamor for it. The 1 billion people living on one dollar a day are struggling to raise a chorus. The 27 million people living in slavery (more than at any time in the history of the world, including during the height of the US slave years) are begging to be heard. The US must back up our overtures of moral superiority. If we are to be a "shining city on a hill," we must let that light shine not just for the world to see and behold, but for the world to live by. By decreasing our commitment in Iraq, we can finally muster the necessary force and power to push the Sudanese government to stop killing innocent Darfuri, to push for some sort of stability in Somalia, to clean up the chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to stop the spread of Hugo Chavez's bs around Latin and South America.
The time is now for America to make the 21st century the greatest the world has ever seen. I think electing Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 is a start.
P.S. I apologize for the length. I'm really verbose.
No comments:
Post a Comment