What does Obama mean when he says we must prepare our military "for the missions of the future."?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

There is a lot of talk from Obama supporters about HRC's recent comment but apparently few Obama supporters even read Obama's article in Foreign Affairs. He has, as usual, exactly the same position as Clinton. Now kick back and relax and watch the spinning as Obama is correct and a dove when he says the same thing while HRC is an evil neocon-lite hawk for having the same position. Ah, the audacity of blind hope.

==REVITALIZING THE MILITARY

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.==

==Enhancing our military will not be enough. As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.==

==We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave.==

Note: Obama has since upped the ante to calling for 100,000 more troops on top of the current 2.3 million we have.

Obama--ever the triangulator--also said in his book that the Pentagon budget "might" have to be increased in the short-term (as usual he did not give a ballpark figure for what short-term means. 8 years?). As far as I know, Clinton has not advocated increased the Pentagon's budget, which is now almost half a trillion dollars a year.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

[Kagemusha]

1. He means the same thing that Hillary did, but said it less poorly.

The. End.

[wyldwolf]

2. He means the same thing that Hillary did, but encased it in a lot fluff

[Missy M]

3. Exactly my thoughts.

[Skip Intro]

4. Well then he must be a stealth rw, evangelical, theocratic, corporatist hawk

or do those terms only apply to Hillary?

[izzie]

5. I hope he means that times are changing so the service must.

Nice to have all those bombers and tanks but they are hard to use in a one man on man fight in some small village of one story homes.

[frazzled]

6. He means get out of Iraq

so we can rebuild the military that has been decimated by this ill-founded conflict, and be ready to face anything the future might bring.

Increasing the military has been a Democratic issue for the last three years. Not for warmongering, but because Bush has wrecked it.

Note that Obama is explicitly rejecting the so-called "Bush Doctrine" here by speaking only of "imminent threat." The Bush Doctrine says we can use the military even when there is no immanent threat, but rather in the "long-term" interests of the country. Obama is clear here: his non-attack/imminent threat scenarios are those that lie within international rules of war.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. He doesn't want to get of Iraq. He will keep an unspecified number of troops for an...

...unspecified length of time in Iraq. Why? For the same reason HRC will. He says that in the article as well. ;)

Fundamentally, both Clinton and Obama have the same view on "preparing for new missions" (as do probably all the candidates). This thread points out the hypocrisy of Team Obama vilifying Clinton but remaining silent on their guy for having the same position.

==Note that Obama is explicitly rejecting the so-called "Bush Doctrine" here by speaking only of "imminent threat." The Bush Doctrine says we can use the military even when there is no immanent threat, but rather in the "long-term" interests of the country. Obama is clear here: his non-attack/imminent threat scenarios are those that lie within international rules of war.==

Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.

[FrenchieCat]

10. You state that Obama " doesn't want to get of Iraq. He will keep an unspecified number of troops for

unspecified length of time in Iraq. Why? For the same reason HRC will."

So what does John Edwards want to do?

Here's Edwards' statement on that:

"I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe."
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr/

How is that any different. How many troops will it take to have "some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel"? The largest embassy in the world.

Add this from Edwards in sames speech dated June 07, speaking of when he becomes President, this is what he would do as part of his Iraq Plan:

"We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Disingenuous spin. Every U.S. embassy in the world is protected by some troops

You conveniently left that fact out...

==How is that any different.==

Kuwait, the Persian Gulf, and Qatar are not Iraq. That is where Edwards, Richardson and the others who will end this war would redeploy the troops.

==How many troops will it take to have "some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel"?==

Probably as many troops it takes to defend our embassies in Turkey, Kenya, Australia, Britain, Brazil, Japan, etc.

=="We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.==

That is blatantly misleading (a tacit admission that the truth won't cut it for your argument...). He was talking about how many troops to add to the military. Here is the full context:

==The problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. It is tempting for politicians to try and "out-bid" each other on the number of troops they would add. Some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops—particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq.

The numbers game only gets us into the same problems as the president's approach. We must be more thoughtful about what the troops will actually be used for. Any troops we add today would take a number of years to recruit and train, and so will not help us today in Iraq.

We might need a substantial increase of troops in the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Forces for four reasons: to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop.

While such proposals are worth close examination, they do not take into account our withdrawal from Iraq—which I believe must occur in about a year. We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where.

I will also double the budget for recruiting, and I will raise the standards for the recruiting pool, so we issue far fewer waivers than we do today under the president's policy. ==

[AtomicKitten]

12. Here's the report on this.

This is the news reporting on this. I can't find an exact quote so this is paraphrased and the title draws a conclusion.

The key word here is IMMEDIATELY. Obama is answering a tough question and gives a responsible answer to a problem he did not create. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, but now he gets to deal with the consequences.

What he did NOT say is that he wasn't going to leave Iraq. He often speaks about getting the hell out of Dodge in his speeches. This is a perfect example of purposefully misleading yet oh so inflammatory BS posted here against Obama. I realize it happens to other candidates too; I think it stinks.

July 30, 2007
Obama: Wouldn't leave Iraq immediately

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday if U.S. troops aren't out of Iraq by the time he's president, the first thing he'd do in office is order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to "get a plan to begin withdrawing" troops from Iraq. He was careful not to say he'd try to bring troops home immediately. "This will be a messy withdrawal," Obama said. "People who say we'll just pull them out are irresponsible."

Obama made his comments at a town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to a group of about 600 people, according to the campaign.

The Illinois senator also devoted a substantial amount of time to ethics reform in Washington, taking a few shots at the Bush administration and "no-bid" contracts.

"When our government gives Halliburton seven billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to put out Iraqi oil fires that don't exist, when we hand over Katrina contracts to more of George Bush's FEMA friends, it doesn't just violate the American people's trust," Obama said. "It takes away the tax dollars they've earned and the valuable services they need."

Obama said that lobbyists "stop us from addressing issues that matter" and that the country needs to "change the way business is done in Washington."

"It's not our agenda being moved forward in Washington," he said. "Special interests dominate on a day to day basis in terms of legislative activity. If we can't change that, we're not going to change anything."

Touting what he says is his refusal to accept money from political action committees has become a staple in Obama's bid for the nomination.

edited for link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/30/obama-wouldnt-leave-iraq-immediately/

[madrchsod]

8. WAR....what is it good for?

well it makes some very rich and the rest very poor. ya let`s just keep on the same path to extinction..

[FrenchieCat]

9. Maybe Obama is saying something similary to what John Edwards said back in June 07.....

As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges—whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... or the vast implications of the political and economic rise of states like India and China and the negative trends in Russia."
John Edwards-
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr/

Also, Edwards on future military force:
"there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests... to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors... to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments... to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons... and to prevent or stop genocide."

and on rebuilding the military:
"We might need a substantial increase of troops in the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Forces for four reasons: to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop."
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr/

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Exactly. Every Democrat, aside from Kucinich and Gravel has that same position

So why was Team Obama crucifying Clinton the same thing?

[CitizenRob]

11. I'd rather have a prepared military

than one that can't do the job we need it to do.

As much as I'd love to think that we would be better off without a super expensive and super strong military all I have to do is look at the recent Russian and Chinese joint war games to know that that is not the reality. It looks and feels to me like we're heading into a new cold war due to the bumbling of President Dumbya. It's unfortunate and terrible that he's made the American Century last only a decade due to his hubris.

Russia, Iran and China for the most part are allies. Strategically if Iran were to attack the US through an invasion into Iraq, and China/Russia were to create a full scale assault on America we would in all likelihood be defeated due to overwhelming numbers. We could use Nuclear weapons of course, but that would result in retaliation and instead of merely being defeated we would be decimated. (The only reason to have nuclear weapons is to keep your opponent from using them on you.)

I'm willing to be that there is a secret crisis going on right now in Washington DC. Our military is spread too thin in hostile territory.

My guess is that the original impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was to create bases of power that would give the US the ability to launch invasion forces into Iran, and China. (Oil was of course a factor as well, two for one.) The proximity of the two countries we invaded to two of our biggest diplomatic headaches is undoubtedly on purpose. With Alaska's bering strait that gives us the strategic upperhand. China can't send an invasion force to America without dealing with a land invasion from Afghanistan (via Pakistan, which btw would be why we work so hard to maintain diplomatic ties with them.) Russia can't send an invasion force to mainland America without an invasion via the bering strait of American forces. Iran can't invade our oil producing allies in the middle east (thereby cutting off our supply and our ability to defend ourselves) without dealing with an invasion force from Iraq.

Well, I'm sure that's how it all worked out in the vacuum bubble thinking that seems to happen in the White House. If they had spent 3 minutes to think about it they might have realized that resistance to the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would prevent that sort of plan from ever being properly implemented.

[RFKJrNews]

13. He needs to clarify this

"==We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense." (Obama)


that's pretty open-ended. I'd like to hear him clarify exactly under which circumstances he feels use of such force would be appropriate.

[CitizenRob]

17. Maybe gay porn?

That's some military force I could get in front of.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

16. "future missions" - we must prepare to defend ourselves from the inevitable

robot rebellion. Haven't you ever seen Terminator? :dunce:

I'm concerned that Obama might want to increase the Pentagon's budget, to be honest. However, Bush has savagely damaged our military and it does need to be fixed. The other issues are pretty normal stands for a potential commander in chief to make.

Not sure what your point is - that President Obama might need to use our armed forces for some unforeseen reason in the future? He's against the Iraq war, not all war. He's been pretty clear about that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. My point is BO supporters are attacking HRC for having the same position their guy has nt

[WCGreen]

18. Buzz Lightyear....

[zulchzulu]

19. I know! Let's have no military and live in Happy Sappy Utopian Land!

Wow. Can't we just play on our computers and chit-chat on our cells and boom out on our iPods and eat our microwaved food while we watch CNN... pass the Cheetos...

Why should we need our military to be prepared for the next generation? I mean, I ride my bike to work, so, like...yunno...

:crazy: