What does Obama really think?
 

I am assuming Obama is going to be our next President. As a result I am trying to get a better understanding of his positions. I often get confused and would like clarity. The media doesn't ask him the questions I would ask, so I will ask them here when they come up. Perhaps, those more familiar with him can add clarity.

The first issue for me is on Afghanistan. I heard Obama say many times that he wants to bring our troops home. I assume he means from Iraq, but lately he seems to be saying the real war is in Afghanistan. Are the troops he wants to bring home, going to be deployed in Afghanistan?

When Obama says he was against "the war", again, I assume he is talking about Iraq, but does that mean he would have voted to use military force in Afghanistan?

Obama stated that he did not support the surge in Iraq, but know seems to be suggesting that a surge in Afghanistan is needed. Is this his view? He seems to suggest that our military is weary and needs a break, how does that fit in with what he wants to do in Afghanistan?

Does Obama see our military in Afghanistan as an occupation? Does he have political goals for Afghanistan? Does he have a time frame for withdraw? How does he define victory in Afghanistan?

Overall, my real concern is that Obama is using Afghanistan to sound like he can be tough and is using Afghanistan as a means to rationalize being against the Iraq war.

I look forward to congress insisting upon an exit strategy and withdrawal date before "redeploying" to Afghanistan.

Obama wants a phased withdrawal of 1-2 brigades a month from Iraq over the course of 16 months. A much smaller, undisclosed number of troops will remain to try and address terrorism issues in Iraq and to assist the Iraqi government, but in a more passive way.

Afghanistan will be a bit different, as Obama sees that Afghanistan and Pakistan are more directly tied to the "GWOT", and more specifically an ongoing and future threat. To that end, he'd like more attention on Pakistan than there has been, which means more incursions and probably more public troop deployment to the border and even across the border. He'd like to deploy 2 additional brigades to A-stan who are not coming off deployment there or elsewhere ( he's used the term "rested"). He wants to work more closely with NATO, and help NATO get more support from the NATO countries that keep putting conditions on the use of their troops and such. He's especially interested in equipping the Afghan police and military with better weapons, as theirs are likely soviet era and are in dire need of replacement. To increase the strength of the government and economy, he wants to send non-military aid to the tune of $1b.
This is an interesting point, but he spoke about this clearly when he said that the additional brigades that he plans to deploy in a-stan cannot be coming off active duty. He wants 7,000 fresh troops. As for it being a "surge", things are a lot different in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. I don't know all the details, but it seems that most of the high military leadership agrees with Obama about Afghanistan. I hope some of our proud TFP military people can elaborate on this better than I can.
Victory is leaving the place in good enough shape that they can run themselves and they won't be housing "terrorists".
It's a very reasonable concern. Progressives are less likely to see it as black and white, though. I personally recognize that Iraq was a mistake and that Pakistan should have been our target instead, along with Afghanistan. The Taliban training camps were no secret and housing OBL is a bad move.

I have wondered this too and questioned my own hearing. It makes me uneasy.

If any of these are true, I hope he is powwowing with Pelosi, if he hasnt already. The whole thing bothers me.

I am taking him at face value until I hear otherwise. shit.

Edit: Hey Willravel you posted while I was composing this. Thanks for the clarity ... and for booting my post out of order to look idiotic. jeez. (besitos)

NP, GD.

A lot of this information is available on Obama's website, but if you need any clarification or have more questions I'll try to field them. I am by no means an Obama expert, but I've been trying to follow his policies as much as possible because I, like Ace, have a sneaking suspicion that he will be our next president.

This "Obama the Mystery Man" meme is getting really old.

His web site has pages and pages and pages of policy on it. If you wonder what he thinks... go find out. Guy's a huge proponent of open government, and he's walking the talk. Only an agenda to keep the "mystery man" meme in play would have someone wonder aloud what Obama thinks, rather than going and reading his policy statements.

I'd still say even though I do the research he still can change his opinion.

His vote on FISA is an example of that. His statement to filibuster was not fulfilled.

So while there are pages and pages of what he thinks and what he says he is going to do, there's the cold reality of a "Read my lips. No new taxes!" happening.

Well, that was troubling, but it wasn't a question of not knowing where he stood. That's a different thing than is being asked in the OP.

I think Obama's approach to foreign policy has been very clear.

I would encourage you to listen to Obama's recent foreign policy speech....

...one focus of which is that our overall foreign policy has been significantly harmed by Bush's obsession over Iraq for the last five years at the expense of Afghanistan (and the true AQ threat) and other foreign policy trouble spots and threats around the world.

And as a result, hat we need to return to broad strategic foreign policy objectives that include rebuilding relations with our allies and a return to diplomacy as a foreign policy tool (backed by threat of force when necessary as a last resort) rather than belligerent and overly aggressive rhetoric when dealing with those who are not our allies or friends.


part 1



part 2



part 3



part 4


Regarding Afghanistan, in addition to will's comments, I believe Obama's focus will be on attempting to restore a greater NATO role, including a greater US role than present...but hardly anywhere near the force level in Iraq.

But by most accounts Afghanistan is a mission impossible.
-----Added 23/7/2008 at 04 : 58 : 44-----
Added:
Now can someone explain McCain's foreign policy to me?

Some of his positions on the surface seem to contradict other information, also his fundamental principles and values get lost in his speeches and the text too me. In another thread I asked about his position on the right to own handguns, which still is not celar to me (which made me think to start this thread because there are some other areas I not clear on as well). Is his values and principles still evolving or do we really know what to expect from him. In the past, even a guy like Carter, agree or disagree, you knew what to expect. I knew what to expect from Bush (although others were surprised). Even Clinton, we knew, he was an opportunist and would do what was popular. I am not comfortable with a President who is still evolving. So, if it is just me and others understand the things that I don't, they can help me.
-----Added 24/7/2008 at 11 : 19 : 34-----
This sounds like what Bush said regarding Iraq. Agree or disagree with the initial invasion it seems that even after non-Iraqi terrorists flocked to Iraq to fight he US in Iraq, Obama was against those goals for Iraq. Why is Afghanistan different? Also,to what degree does he consider the remaining terrorist in Afghanistan a threat? How far is he willing to go with Pakistan? He is critical of tough talk, how does he expect to get anything done without at some point stating what he is willing to do?

Hmmm....disagree. :thumbsup:
Afghanistan had "terrorists" when we invaded. Afghanistan had real connections to OBL and by extension 9/11. While there isn't much al Qaeda in Iraq any more (if any, most is in Pakistan), what's left would be out goal. We do that by sending 2 more brigades to Afghanistan, per Obama's plan.

Pakistan is something Bush has really refused to do. I can't even recall him saying anything about any plans. Obama has mentioned very clearly the use of military force to strike al Qadea targets in Pakistan. No invasion (that would be insane), but military options.

Obama on Pakistan:
obama pakistan - Google Search

I don't think "war" in Afghanistan in the traditional way of looking at war is practical. Given the landscape and cooperation from sympathizers in Pakistan conducting a military campaign similar to what was used in Iraq won't work. Sending 2 more brigades in my opinion won't have an impact on capturing OBL. To capture him would require some luck not more troops.

Why does he see fighting terrorists in Iraq different from fighting them in Afghanistan?

Regarding Pakistan - he would use the military in Pakistan but would not "invade" Pakistan? Would he do this without Pakistan's, Congressional or UN authorization?

Sorry what someone thinks and does may vary vastly from his propaganda he spews during the campaign. And that goes for all elected officials and their broken promises.

Which is the difference between a freshman senator and a veteran one since in one case you know where the person is what his view is and where he lands on issues. Of course there will be deals made and not everything a candidate wants will be, but Obama is a blank page to many since he is still a freshman which is why people continue to question dispite his what he has said.

But that's not what the OP is asking, as I said to Cynthetiq above. "Will he flip-flop?" isn't the question that's being asked. I'm sure he will, and I'll grit my teeth and remind myself that he's a politician doing what a politician has to do for political purposes. But that's not the question that is being asked.

The question is, "What does he think?". And my point is: if you're still asking that at this point, that's YOUR fault, not his. He's been very clear on his plan for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader Middle East, as dc_dux among others have tried valiantly to bring to this thread. If you still "don't know" in spite of ALL THAT, it's because you're not listening. And then I have to ask, WHY aren't you listening? And is it consistent with the meme you're pushing to keep Obama a cipher? And what political end is that in service of?

Why would troops in Afghanistan be looking for OBL? He's clearly not there. We're in Afghanistan to help reestablish order and to prevent it from becoming a "terrorist" haven. This means rooting out ex-Taliban and removing warlords from power.
There aren't terrorists in Iraq. The al Qaeda presence among the insurgency is less than 2%, and that's a very high estimation. If you talk to people on the ground, there's basically no al Qaeda presence there except in planning strikes on American troops.

Afghanistan is different because they were hosting al Qaeda and Taliban long before the US invaded. It could happen again.
Obama's more likely to gather verifiable evidence (which is already readily available) and make a stronger case to the UN. No bullshit lies and exaggerations should be necessary to make said case. From his record, he'd likely get congressional approval unless somehow the GOP retook the Senate. And then hell could freeze over when Democrats are calling Republicans cowards and enemies of freedom and such.