Given some of the statements of Obama's foreign policy team, which country will the US invade next?

I'm betting on the easy win. If he wants to look good and win, Sudan is the only easy target.

Nobody REALLY cares about Africa.

You have to pretend to care....

Caring doesn't matter. It's about winning.

Nobody wants to go to war with Russia?

Will his base support serious warmongering?

Zbig and some of his team have a hard-on for a "resurgent" Russia.

Democrats will support anything Obama does. Sure, there will be complaints, but they will go along.

Russians are back to bartering, and their oil wealth is going to dwindle for a while. I wouldn't worry too much right now. I worry more that Dems will want to copy the OLD Russia than fight the new one.

He's the ultimate facelift for US imperialism and the internationlists in the Beltway. I'm serious, this guy is going to expand the war into one of these countries.

I'm just worried about all the noise. The Russians have decided to put military bases in Abkhazia, and they're deploying the Iskander system in Kaliningrad. This could have been avoided, but people don't seem to understand how nutty this has become. This situation with Georgia really could have been avoided.

It would certainly make him a hypocrite for the ages.

No war, just a new tone.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/07...;iref=polticker

CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden emphasized a "new tone" in Washington and around the world as he delivered his first major speech Saturday in Munich, Germany.


"America will do more," Vice President Joe Biden told the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Saturday.

Biden told delegates at a security conference that the United States will work "preventively, not pre-emptively" whenever possible to avoid conflict, and will at the same time "vigorously defend" the nation's security.

He also said the United States will do everything possible to end the threat posed by extremists.

"We reject as false the choice between our safety and ideals," Biden told the Munich Security Conference audience, which included German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "America will vigorously defend our security and our values, and in doing so we will all be more secure."

That policy will be in force at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the U.S. prison that the Obama administration intends to close, Biden said. Watch Biden address security conference »

"America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those we bring to justice," Biden said.

The vice president emphasized cooperation with allies and to extend a hand to others. He asked for shared responsibility for security and fighting extremism.

"America will do more. That's the good news," Biden said. "The bad news is, America will ask from more from our partners as well."

Obama's administration doesn't believe international alliances or organizations will diminish American power, Biden said. In fact, he said, such alliances do the opposite -- as long as they are "credible and effective."

He said nations working together can help persuade Iran to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, an "illicit" program that Biden said is not conducive to peace.

"Our administration is reviewing our policy toward Iran, but this much is clear: We'll be willing to talk," Biden said. "We'll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

By acting preventively to avoid conflict, Biden said, the United States can start to recapture its strength.

Biden stressed a commitment to reach peace in the Middle East and draw down U.S. forces in Iraq. He also said the United States will continue to work for a stable Afghanistan.

"We look forward to sharing that commitment with the government and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with all of our allies and partners, because a deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat not just to the United States, but I would suggest, somewhat presumptively, to every one of you assembled in this room," Biden said.

Obama ordered a strategic review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is soliciting input from allies, Biden said.

"We are sincere in seeking your counsel," Biden said. "As we undertake this review, there's a lot at stake. The result must be a comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility."

The United States also aims to increase foreign assistance to ease poverty, boost education, cancel the debts of poor countries, and launch a "green revolution" that produces sustainable supplies of food.

"We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet," Biden said. "We are prepared to once again lead by example."

On the issue of a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe -- a bone of contention with Russia -- Biden said the United States will remain firm in defending against the nuclear threat, and he said Washington aims to work together with Moscow.

"We will not agree with Russia on everything," he said. "For example, the United States will not -- will not -- recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence."

But, Biden added, "the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide, and they coincide in many places."


Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov had started off the day Saturday by proposing a ban on deployment of strategic offensive weapons outside a country's borders, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.

Biden also promised that America will "act aggressively against climate change."

PS, what happened to global warming?

I picked "Russia". It's not as if it's not a push-poll, anyway.

I'd have picked none of the above if it had been a choice. However the possibilities do remain.

Climate change is much easier to blame.

People hate change, and anything that seems unusual will qualify as evidence.

Screw your "baby Jesus" bs thread. I'm sick of hearing it.

What country did you pick? Given my extensive research on his foreign policy team, I tried to assemble the countries I thought were most likely to have military action taken against them. I didn't include Iran because Israel may act unilaterally.

As a poll, it lacks the necessary none of the above answer.

I assumed that was part of the plan. Very few polls are designed just to find some universal truth.

You're right, I should have included none of the above. I tend to be a tool at times.

It forces people to make a choice. Lots of polls do. Obama has made some statements about what he'd do, so it's valid enough to force folks to decide if they think he's serious.

It sorta kinda is.

It has more options that a Zogby poll, at least.

Obama Wants a Surge of His Own

On Super Bowl Sunday, President Barack Obama said most U.S. troops in Iraq would be home in time to watch Super Bowl XLIV. Yet a day later he was conferring with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about plans for adding another 15,000 troops in Afghanistan (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen believes as many as 30,000 additional troops are needed in Afghanistan). Although Obama has previously been critical of the surge strategy in Iraq, he seems to believe that a similar course of action will be successful in Afghanistan:

"Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security – the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan's economic development."

First and foremost, the jury is still out – and will be for quite some time – on whether the surge in Iraq has, in fact, been successful. According to Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East and military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "Iraq is very much a work in progress, and one that will take at least several more years to achieve any meaningful stability." For the moment, at least, the situation has improved. According to Iraq Body Count:

"With only a few days of 2008 remaining, the year so far has seen another 8,315-9,028 civilian deaths added to the IBC database. This compares to 25,774-27,599 deaths reported in 2006, and 22,671-24,295 in 2007. This is a substantial drop on the preceding two years: on a per-day rate, it represents a reduction from 76 per day (2006) and 67 per day (2007) to 25 per day in 2008.

"The most notable reduction in violence has been in Baghdad. For the first time since the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq began, fewer deaths have been reported in the capital than in the rest of the country (from 54% of all deaths in 2006-2007 to 32% in 2008)."

But (there's always a but):

"[A]reas outside Baghdad have seen far less dramatic reductions in violence, and dozens of civilians are still being killed in conflict-related violence throughout Iraq on a relentless, daily basis. At 25 per day, the 2008 rate for violent civilian deaths is equivalent to that existing throughout the first 20 months of post-invasion Iraq, from May 2003 to December 2004 (15,355 deaths over 610 days)."

So things have gotten better in a relative sense but not necessarily in an absolute sense. And the fact remains that nearly 100,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 (the Lancet study estimates more than 650,000 Iraqis killed, and Opinion Research Business puts the number at over one million – both using polling to arrive at their estimates).

Moreover, a reduction in violence is only one metric to measure the efficacy of the surge. Indeed, reducing violence is a means to an end, and a necessary but not sufficient condition. The larger stated objective is political stability and reconciliation. Iraq had provincial elections on the Saturday before the Super Bowl, but the results are mixed. The biggest positive is that the elections were not marred by violence. Sunnis participated in large numbers, in contrast to their boycott of the 2005 elections. However, turnout was much lower than previous Iraqi elections, perhaps signaling disenchantment with democracy on the Tigris and Euphrates. Secular parties appear to have done better against religious parties, probably because of a backlash against the latters' inability to provide jobs, services, and utilities. But one of the most powerful Shi'ite blocs, the Sadrist movement led by the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, did not participate in the provincial elections, so lack of results cannot be construed to mean that Sadr (and his resistance to continued U.S. military occupation) is no longer part of the political landscape – especially at the national level, with elections later this year.

And it is important to remember that the ultimate test will be what happens after U.S. forces have been withdrawn from Iraq. It is entirely possible that everything could come undone once there is no longer an imperial presence and Iraqis feel they are truly free to run their country as they see fit.

But even if we are willing to believe that the surge has worked in Iraq (at least in reducing in the level of violence) – and that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan – we need to understand that the key to any success has not been the deployment of more troops. Rather, the primary reason for reduced violence is that we have bribed Shi'ite militias not to fight, which may work in the short run, but does not bode well in the long run for Iraq. Ironically, many of these are the same militias we previously armed to fight Sunni insurgents.

Such a strategy is not likely to work in Afghanistan. If a resurgent Taliban is the threat, it's not likely that they can simply be bought off. It may be necessary to include them in the political landscape of Afghanistan – something Washington is reluctant to do since the Taliban and al-Qaeda are considered one and the same (which may no longer be the case).

There is also the issue of Afghanistan's opium poppy crop, which constitutes a crucial part of the Afghan economy (about one-third of the country's GDP). Although some of the money from drug trafficking in Afghanistan helps fund al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the bulk of it is the only livelihood for many Afghans. If we don't want that opium on the open market, the Iraq surge strategy would suggest buying it. Yet America's war on drugs makes poppies an evil to be exterminated. And pushing the Karzai regime to pursue such a strategy only makes the Kabul government's position more precarious.

So the prospects for a surge in Afghanistan achieving even a modicum of success are relatively dim. Afghanistan is not known as the graveyard of empires without good reason. One thing, however, is certain. More boots on the ground means more occupation. More occupation means more resentment of the United States among Afghans and Muslims around the world. More resentment means more potential terrorists.

http://antiwar.com/pena/

It isn't like it's a big surprise. He said when he was running that Afghanistan should be the priority, and the peaceniks still voted for him.

I am sure he beat the alternative in their eyes. Compared to what, and all that good stuff.

I loved how he changed his tune about Iraq.

1. 6 month withdrawal
2. 16 month withdrawal
3. 24 month withdrawal

He also neglected to tell his lemmings that he planned on leaving a residual force of up to 60,000 troops.

I never heard him say anything about 6 months.

And, I heard him use plenty of euphemisms.

Folks who don't use those don't get elected. You and I know that from our respective parts of the political spectrum.

Yep. That sword cuts both ways. I try to tell folks when they whine about me loving Bush.

That is job one. Part of why I've never found a politician worth personally supporting or donating to. They're all so much alike if they want a chance at winning for either party.

You can find the 6 month date on YouTube. It's really amazing how this guy changes his tune on EVERYTHING.



Fair enough...

What I recall Obama claiming during the campaign was 16 months. One brigade a month, or the like.

That's what I 'retained', myself. Never for a minute thought that it would be a literal or even somewhat 'hasty' "let's get the heck out".

That SOME U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future was never in question, in my mind.

Lemmings woulda voted for hillary I'll warrant.

On You Tube, if you take the time, you'll see he made a remark about a 6 month withdrawal date.

In order to solve the Iraq misadventure, there has to be a unilateral withdrawal. If US troops stay in Iraq, they'll be targeted on a daily basis. The Iraqis want us out, so we should oblige them. We did destroy countless lives for a cadre of ideologues.

I don't dispute the veracity of your claim that at some point he may have directly or indirectly 'promised' troop withdrawal within 6 months.

On the other issue, let's be honest and realistic: There's a BIG difference between 130-150K of troops in an occupation-capacity and 15K troops in 'bases'.

My preference would be nil, but it's not going to happen.

The residual forces will number much more than 15k. But even it is was 15k, the Iraqis will still see it as an occupation force, imposing their will on a sovereign nation. According to various scenarios and plans being tossed around, Obama plans on leaving anywhere from 30k-80k troops in Iraq. This is being done to use Iraq as an operations and logistics hub for military action against other Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries.

I doubt you're the type to have believed his original story, but I'm sure some people did. He's slowly running out of differences with Bush.

I'm not sure on the 6 months thing, though I am sure that I'm already disappointed in the ending the war department.

That being said, I think it'd be right for you to take the time and post the link to the video. It is your claim afterall.

Again, let's be realistic. Even if some Iraqis continue to see the remaining troops as still an occupation force, what are they going to do about it, when they have more important and 'nourishing' fish to fry?

And, it's not going to be 80K. That's just hyperbole.

And, yes, the whole idea is to use Iraq as a base for further, if better planned and executed this time, empire operations.

You didn't expect the empire-building and maintaining to end with Obama, did ya?

I did and do.

beware the military industrial complex

Good luck.

They'll continue to kill Americans on an indefinite basis. The only 'nourishing' activity they have is ridding themselves of the US yolk. Here's a country with 1.5 million dead an 4.5 million displaced since their "liberation" and "freedom" from Saddam. Trust me, unlike the US, those people have all the time in the world.



It's not hyperbole. According to Obama's coordinator of his Iraq working group, Colin Kahl, the plan is to have a force of 60k-80k troops in Iraq. Mr. Kahl has euphemistically termed this "sustainable over-watch posture". I can post a link to the paper if you want.



Maybe he'll actually start a world war with his lunatic foreign policy team.



No, I did not. I just want to point out it's more of the same. Like I said, they guy is a facelift for US imperialism.

as if we had a choice