Thursday, December 28, 2006

Obama Speaks Out on the War in Iraq

Here are some comments that Senator Barack Obama made concerning the current war in Iraq:

"There is no military solution to this war. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And after all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up. That is why I believe we must being a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and the people of Iraq and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up. The status quo cannot hold."

Ok, I would like to discuss this a bit.

First, I agree that the situation over there is more a diplomatic than a military situation. Our troops can NOT solve the root causes of why the insurgents are bombing buses and day care centers and whatever. The troops can NOT get the various Muslim groups to the bargaining table. These are definitely jobs left to the diplomats. However, so far, the diplomats, be it by the internal government, or external, including our state department, have not presented any viable solutions. It would appear to me that if a viable solution were given to these groups, perhaps they would try to come to some sort of an agreement. It COULD happen, it has before. But unfortunately, nobody has come up with any ideas.

A non-military solution must be presented. SOMEONE has to figure something out. Escalating the situation and adding additional troops will not and can not assist the effort. The more soldiers we send, the more we could lose.

Sadly, the situation will probably still be going on in 2008 and we need a leader with good foreign policy experience. Honestly, we do not need to be looking for (for lack of a better term) a "war time" president.

Any thoughts?

Also posted at
Concerned Citizen


  1. Hey otter, we've got a wartime President now who is the only man on the planet that the terrorists fear... and the liberals and Democrats want to impeach him, try him for warcrimes and hang him instead of Saddam.

    So,...who ya'gonna call?
    Hillary & Bill?(chuckle)
    Obama? (giggle)
    Edwards? (ha ha)
    Ted Kennedy?(lol)
    Dean, Pelosi, Reid...(roflmao)

    maybe "we" should be thankful for what "we've" got...instead of wishing for what "we" don't want/need and can't afford.
    Unless you are suggesting maybe Condi Rice or Romney...
    then I'm with ya'

  2. You are right, we have the right man for the job right now.
    But what I was referring to is who we should look to in 2008. I feel that it is highly likely that we will not be done with it by 2008 and we will STILL need a war-time president.
    The only problem is, I can't think of anyone who would fit the bill right now, except maybe McCain but I don't really know enough about him to make an informed, educated decision on if I would support him or not.

  3. you are spot-on otter (as the britt's like to say)...McCain is pretty wishywashy... bless his heart.

    I honestly don't know who I can support at this point...either.

    Like you said, this ain't gonna be over any time soon, and we must have someone that at least understands we are at war and wants to win (the war). we also need a person who will secure the borders and stop illegal immigration.

    Right now, if I had my preference I'd have to go with Romney or Tancredo or Santorum with Condi as VP... but she says no-way.

    Good read/call on Obama.
    be very afraid.