Obama's Marshall Plan

By Cernig

The text of Obama's big national security speech today is now available via the New York Times. In it, he echoes General George Marshall's call to the American people to "examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity" rather than take a short-term and isolationist view. He directly charges the Bush administration, and McSame, of failing to do that:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What’s missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

He promises that his presidency will be one with a weather eye on long-term goals and long-term consequences, one that will talk to current enemies in an attempt to make them future non-enemies at least, if not allies. It's a perspective the U.S. has been sadly missing these last eight years, as the Bush administration, led by the neoconservative nose, has been far more inclined to contemplate what wars it could get into than those it could prevent. McCain was right there with them, and Obama doesn't fail to remind people of the fact, pointing out that while he himself opposed the invasion, McCain was saying that US troops would be greeted like liberators. Who has the more questionable judgment now, John?

In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That’s over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

That’s why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war.

... George Bush and John McCain don’t have a strategy for success in Iraq – they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government – not to a terrorist enemy.

That's excellent framing, tying McCain to Bush and both to an unpopular perpetual occupation, and is going to put McCain's campaign on the defensive - - where it should be. He goes on to echo my own thoughts earlier today - that sovereign nations get to decide their own fates and that Bush and McCain refuse to cut Iraq's apron strings and allow it to stand up as a nation again. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to make it one." Nor, I might add, do we have the right to occupy Iraq in perpetuity under cover of trying.

Obama moves on next to Afghanistan; noting that Bin Laden is still at large the Taliban and Al Qaeda are both resurgent in the amorphous and porous Pakistan/Afghan border region, that any new (/11 attack on the U.S. will come from there rather than Iraq and that McCain is flat wrong when he says that efforts in Iraq have not taken away from efforts in Afghanistan. Obama plans to send two additional brigades, drawn down from Iraq, along with a lot more aid workers and reconstruction specialists - "wingtips on the ground" - and a sizable aid package. This, by the way, is what senior former officers with Afghan experience say is needed to end whack-a-mole operations there and actually kick-start a new Afghan "Surge", rather than a massive new influx of troops.

On Pakistan, which many would say is the Iran-for-real of the War on Terror, Obama has this to say:

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

That sounds just about right to me, and again echoes worries I've had about Pakistan's role for years now. The biggest single step which could be made, I believe, is to ask Pakistan's leadership what it would take to purge its military and intelligence services entirely of the criminals inside that state who fund, direct and shelter Al Qaeda and other terror groups. That help should be provided and the Pakistani government held to the agreement in no uncertain terms - by UNSC resolution if required.

Obama worries about nuclear proliferation and wants to actually do something about it rather than just sabre-wave at the enemy de jour with trumped up accusations. Accordingly, Pakistan as the world's biggest illegal nuclear proliferator has to be word one on any such policy - but it needs to be followed by outreach to other nations where loose materials and technology abound - like Russia, another place where the Bush administration's policy of pretend-negotiation and recalcitrance has hindered rather than increased co-operation.

Next comes energy policy, an inextricable part of the War on Terror and a vital national security interest:

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.

...This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern – this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security – and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump – we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that’s exactly what I’ll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won’t do. I’ll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security.

That path will emphasise renewable energy, not just be a corporate welfare system for coal, oil and nuclear concerns.

Obama tops the whole thing off with a by-now-familiar call for America to try real diplomacy instead of using negotiation as cover for war hype, and by so doing:

To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another – and from the world – instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

It's all good stuff for a stump speech. Exactly what was needed. Now Obama's campaign needs to follow it with reams of detail - a massive policy document in PDF downloadable format that's just as good as this speech.

Comments

[carol]

Thank you for the excellent summation Cernig. Reading the part about what we could have done after 9/11 made me cry. To think of all the goodwill capitol, both stateside and foreign, squandered, is absolutely shameful to me. Anyway, I appreciate your insight on this speech- thanks for posting.