War

Barack Obama, in a statement Monday, said that Georgia should be admitted to NATO:

“I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship,” Obama says.

I’m glad to hear him taking a strong position on this.  Had Georgia been admitted to NATO earlier, Russia would never have invaded.  It would have pissed the Russians off, but they wouldn’t have invaded.

In other Georgia and Russia related news, Russia today ordered a ceasefire.  What this actually means is yet to be seen.  Russian troops are still in Georgia and show no signs of leaving, they just aren’t actively attacking at the moment.

Looks like the conflict between Russia and Georgia has just escalated.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin declared that “war has started” and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia accused Russia of a “well-planned invasion,” saying he had mobilized Georgia’s military reserves.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said the Bush administration had been talking to both sides to resolve the crisis.

“We urge restraint on all sides — that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences,” she said.

The European Union and NATO also called Friday for Russia and Georgia to end the hostilities.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a statement calling on both sides to use “the greatest prudence and restraint” and “to halt the use of force immediately.”

Condi is bringing up Iran again, I’m sure to convince us all that we need another war.

“They should have felt like time is running out quite a long time ago,” she said in an elegant reception room near her private suite. “When you are having trouble getting banks to come in, getting investment, when export credits are going down from around the world, when you have inflation roaring, time is running out.”

The six-nation group – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany - contends that Iran is building nuclear warheads under the guise of a civilian power program. Rice said the dictatorship will have to “make a tough decision” to avoid a further financial squeeze from the Security Council, which she believes is likely to act this fall.

“What is happening to Iran is that its isolation is costing them,” she said. “It’s having an effect. I think that’s one reason that you’re seeing them trying to give half-answers rather than simply saying no. But the fact is we won’t accept half-answers, either.”

You get that?  Sanctions are working; the Iranians are struggling now.  But we will still probably have to attack them!

I can’t wait until these clowns are out of office.

Go read the whole thing and watch the video over at The Politico.

Here are the top five reasons why I am voting for Barack Obama:

1. The Economy - In 2009 the United States is projected to have a deficit of more than $480 BILLION.  Our national debt is quickly climbing to $10 TRILLION.  Republicans have run our economy into the ground with their irresponsible fiscal policies, and our children (and their children) will pay the price.  It is no easy task to pay off $10 trillion dollars in debt.  As if our nation’s cash flow problems weren’t enough to be concerned about, the American people aren’t doing so great these days either.  With gas at $4 a gallon, and many foods at all time high prices, many American families are struggling to get by.  Jobs are being lost, and not being replaced.  Paul Krugman posted a graph of employment growth for each president back to Dwight Eisenhower.  Notice the clear difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  The Republican Party has proven time and time again that they are not good stewards of the economy.  It’s time to go with a Democrat.
2. The Iraq War - The Iraq War was a mistake from day one.  Saddam Hussein was a terrible human being, but he posed little threat to the United States.  He had no weapons of mass destruction; he was surrounded by nations that despised him and would contain him (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Iran - not to mention the American patrolled no fly zones).  Furthermore, Saddam had no role whatsoever in the planning, funding, or execution of the 9/11 attacks.  Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein.  But Iraq distracted us from the war we should have been fighting.  It is still distracting us from the war we should be fighting.  The Iraqi government and military can step up and take control of their nation.  It’s time for the United States to withdraw and refocus it’s military efforts where they are most needed.  Barack Obama supports withdrawal in 16 months so that we can do just that.  Which of course brings me to reason 3.
3. The War in Afghanistan - Obama recognizes that Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror.  He advocates sending at least an additional two brigades to Afghanistan.  We should have had these extra troops there in the first place.  It is well documented that Osama bin Laden was in Tora Bora when we bombed it, but slipped out through the mountain passes.  We did not have enough troops to adequately secure the area to assure his death or capture.  This is a mistake that will not be made a second time if Barack Obama is president.  On September 11th, 2001 Al Qaeda, on the orders of Osama bin Laden, attacked the United States and killed more than 3,000 people.  in the 7 years since the Bush Administration has failed to capture or kill bin Laden.  It’s clear that Republican priorities are flawed, but John McCain wants to continue those policies.  Barack Obama will capture kill Osama bin Laden because his foreign policy will be focused on Afghanistan and dismantling terror networks, rather than foolish and costly preemptive wars.
4. Health Care - The health care system in the United States is a mess.  Despite spending far more on health care than any other industrialized nation, Americans often receive worse care.  American life expectancy and infant mortality rates have fallen behind other modernized nations.  A major part of the problem is that the lack of quality, affordable health care means that our system focuses on curing an illness rather than preventing it in the first place.  Barack Obama has a health care plan that will give access to quality, affordable health care to every single American.  John McCain does not.  If your health is important to you, the choice in this election is clear.
5. Energy - Our economy and our planet are both in peril and a major reason is our dependence on fossil fuels.  Not only is this an economic and ecological problem, but it is also a national security problem.  We cannot rely on foreign sources of energy and maintain our position as the worlds only superpower.  John McCain’s solution is to drill offshore, drill in Alaska, and drill everywhere else we can put an oil well.  But we can’t drill our way out of this problem.  Barack Obama’s energy plan will guide our nation to energy independence with the use of clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.

Apparently things are going fantastically in Iraq these days.  Thank you John McCain!  We couldn’t have stopped the violence without you.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, at least 24 people were killed and 187 wounded, after a female suicide bomber blew herself up amid thousands of Kurdish demonstrators who had gathered near the provincial headquarters building, said Brig. Gen. Burhan Tayyib Taha of the Iraqi police in Kirkuk.

And:

In the attacks in Baghdad, three women used suicide vests and a bomb in a bag to make strikes just minutes apart, killing 24 people, all apparently Shiite pilgrims marching in a festival, according to an official at the Interior Ministry. The dead included at least four children, one of them an infant, and there were at least 62 other people wounded, according to police officials and witnesses.

Can’t we get out of this mess already?

Posted By: Nick

 
Barack Obama writes his plan for Iraq in today’s NYTimes.  I’m sure this is mostly in response to the criticism he recieved last week when he said he would visit Iraq and reevaluate after his trip.  I think it’s clear he meant he was open to tweeking his plan here and there as required based on the reality of the situation, but never fundamentally mean that his position of ending the war would change.  Of course his poor choice of words left him open to attack, so today he has clearly stated his position so as to avoid any confusion.

Here are some bits I especially like:

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

But [the Bush/McCain plan] is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

I love it.  He’s saying exactly what we should be doing.  Get out of Iraq ASAP, and get more focused on Afghanistan.

Posted By: Nick

 
On Sunday, Taliban militants in Afghanistan attacked a U.S./NATO military base.  Nine American soldiers were killed, 15 NATO soldiers (likely Americans) were wounded, and 4 Afghani soldiers were wounded.  That the Taliban has been able to regroup to the extent that it feels comfortable attacking a U.S. military base is extremely troublesome.  That they managed to inflict the damage they did is even more troublesome.  Things are not going well in Afghanistan.

I wrote about Afghanistan last week, and I’m sure I will continue to do so.  The fact of the matter is, we have a foolish, shortsighted strategy in Afghanistan that is doing nothing to increase our national security.  Iraq distracted us from what should have been our real focus: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Now they have regrouped and we are beginning to pay the price.

We need more troops in Afghanistan, we need a new, aggressive military strategy, we need to convince Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against the Taliban; and we need these things now.  If militants in Afghanistan (likely operating from inside Pakistan) are capable of launching such an attack on a U.S. military base, then what else can they do?

Six and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is unacceptable.  The failure of the Bush Administration to properly execute this war has real consequences that we are now beginning to see.

NYTimes Article

Posted By: Nick

 
There has been quite the increase in commentary this week about possible war with Iran.  It’s an unfortunate situation that looks like it may not have a happy ending with the current administration running the show.

The truth of a war with Iran is that the United States would win.  While Iran is larger than Iraq, and has a better military, they are still no match for the United States Military.  We would win.  We would win quickly and decisively.  But after we win… then what?  Suddenly we would find ourselves occupying a vast swath of the middle east (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan).  Iran is much larger than Iraq both in terms of geographic area and population.  The occupation of Iraq will likely pale in comparison to an occupation of Iran.

The further concern is what will happen in terms of the broader Middle East.  Will Iran launch missiles at Israel in response?  Will this draw other nations into the conflict?  The situation could quickly get out of hand.  The mere though of the United States occupying so much more of the Middle East will surely inflame the Islamic world.

Oil prices, already at ridiculous levels, will surely increase.

But these things may be inevitable.  Afterall, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.  Though some in my party on the far left would like us to never go to war for any reason, sometimes we must.  If Iran looks to be on the verge of developing a bomb, we must stop them.  Fortunately the recent estimates I’ve read give us at least another year before Iran has an operational nuclear weapon.  And even then, they would have only the one (or maybe two?).  We still have time to resolve the situation without war, and the Bush administration (and whichever administration comes in next year) should actively pursue all avenues of dealing with Iran.  We should be talking to Iranians.  Diplomacy works, and can work in this situation.  But that shouldn’t be our only action.  We should continue to actively seek sanctions as long as the Iranians continue nuclear development.  We should maintain our covert actions to both hamper Iran’s nuclear production and to make Iran’s cost of doing business unmanageable.

If we actively engage Iran on numerous fronts (Diplomatic, Economic, Military [covert operations and threats]) we can resolve this situation before it gets out of hand.

The alternative of course is a war that we will win, but which may cripple our nation as a result.