Kommentar til tredje TV-debat ml. Romney og Obama (anden del).

I første del af min kommentar til den tredje præsidentdebat kom jeg ind på debattens snævre holdningsspektrum hvad droneprogrammet angår. En forsnævring af debatten som er nært sammenhængende med, at alle tredjepartskandidater er udelukket fra debatterne, hvorfor kun et smalt udbud af de officielle præsidentkandidaters holdninger når ud til verdens befolkning under de nøje iscenesatte begivenheder (mere herom senere).

Irans Atomprogram.

Hele debatten bar præg af en så høj grad af enighed mellem de to kandidater, at man med rette kan spørge om der overhovedet var tale om en debat? Heller ikke hvad angår spørgsmålet om den amerikanske udenrigspolitiske stillingtagen til det iranske atomprogram var der nogen nævneværdig divergens mellem kandidaterne. Barack Obama havde følgende at sige om sagen:

"...as long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I made that clear when I came into office. We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest levels since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles. 

And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to Israel's national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that's unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map. 

So, the work that we’ve done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice: they can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program, or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we’re not going to take any options off the table. 

The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake, because when I’ve sent young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.”

Først og fremmest bør man i ovenstående citat bide mærke i, at Obama taler om det iranske atomprogram som om dets formål er militært. Han vil forhindre, at Iran får atomvåben og de "forkrøblende" sanktionernes formål er, at bevirke at præstestyret opgiver programmet. Spørgsmålet er imidlertid hvorfra præsidenten har, at det iranske atomprogram har militære formål?

Hvad dette angår kender præsidenten selvfølgelig til de samme israelske og amerikanske efterretningskilder som offentligheden kender til. Hverken disse eller IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) har på noget tidspunkt været i stand til at fremvise en såkaldt rygende pistol som klart indikerer, at det iranske præstestyre er ved at udvikle et atomprogram med andet end civile formål. Førend denne rygende pistoler foreligger kan vi derfor ikke godtage præmissen bag Obamas konfrontatoriske kurs.

Bemærkelsesværdigt er det desuden, at Obama omtaler sanktionerne mod Iran som "forkrøblende". Et interessant ordvalg må man sige, men desværre lader det ikke til, at det er præstestyret der forkrøbles af sanktionerne. Det er snarere den iranske civilbefolkning.

Lad os et kort øjeblik skrue tiden tilbage, til dengang i midthalvfemserne hvor Obama's udenrigsminister var førstedame i Det Hvide Hus, under hendes mand præsident Bill Clintons administration. Under Clinton påtvang man den irakiske civilbefolkning hvad der skulle vise sig, at være ikke blot forkrøblende, men intet mindre end massemorderiske sanktioner, idet denne form for kollektivt afstraffende økonomisk krigsførelse iflg. FN resulterede i omegnen af en halv million børns alt for tidlige død. Konfronteret med disse tal i nyhedsprogrammet 60 Minutes, gjorde USAs daværende udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright det klart for hele verden, at hun og Clinton-administration fandt det var prisen værd.

Så det er altså ikke fordi Obama-administrationen ikke er klar over de potentielle civile omkostninger denne form for økonomisk krigsførelse kan medføre, idet administrationens udenrigsminister, Hillary Clinton, boede i Det Hvide Hus dengang man påtvang den irakiske befolkning samme form for kollektive afstraffelse. Præsident Obama - og hans nærmeste folk i administrationen hvad udenrigspolitiske anliggender angår - må altså derfor antages, at være fuldt ud klar over, at de "forkrøblende sanktioner” som han taler om, potentielt kan få konsekvenser for civilbefolkningen, i folkemordets størrelsesorden.

Dette er mildest talt bekymrende og de facto en krigserklæring mod både præstestyret og den iranske civilbefolkning, selvom der er ikke er tale om en krigserklæring i streng juridisk forstand. Kollektiv afstraffelse er ikke noget man tager let på i folkeretten. Den Fjerde Genevekonvention betragter ganske enkelt kollektiv afstraffelse som en krigsforbrydelse. Heldigvis for Obama-administrationen bør dette ikke forvolde de store bekymringer, da Den Fjerde Genevekonvention ikke gælder så længe der ikke de jure er tale om en krig mod Iran. Her kan man dog med rette spørge hvorfor kollektiv afstraffelse af en uskyldig civilbefolkning skulle være mindre moralsk forkastelig blot fordi der er tale om en situation der officielt ikke udspiller sig i krigstid?  

Når vi har det in mente, at den siddende præsident har sin faglige baggrund indenfor jura - et fag som han har både har praktiseret og undervist i - har man god grund til at antage, at han nok er bekendt med nøgledokumenter indenfor folkeretten. Når præsidenten gentagent har truet det iranske præstestyre og landets befolkning med vold (”all options are on the table”) kan vi derfor med god ret antage, at dette sker i fuld bevidsthed om, at voldstrusler er i lodret strid med ordlyden i De Forenede Nationers Pagt, nærmere bestemt kapitel 1, artikel 2 stykke 4: 

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Skulle man være i tvivl om hvad der menes med FNs formål kan man blive klogere ved at læse artikel 1 i samme kapitel, hvor man får at vide, at formålet er:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

Kommentar til tredje TV-debat ml. Romney og Obama (første del).

I nat løb den tredje TV-debat mellem Mitt Romney og Barack Obama af stablen. Denne gang havde debatten den amerikanske udenrigspolitik som sit omdrejnings- punkt. Jeg kommenterer derfor i det følgende på to af de punkter der blev berørt under debatten. 

Droneprogrammet.

Romney om hans holdning til droneprogrammet:

“Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.”

Besynderligt er det ikke ligefrem, at Romney støtter op om et våbenprogram som blev sendt i luften af hans republikanske forgænger, men det viser med al ønskelig tydelighed hvor snævert holdningsspektrummet er i TV-debatterne, som alle præsidentkandidater udenfor det herskende topartisystem er udelukket fra, selvom flere af dem er opstillet på stemmesedlen i de fleste amerikanske stater. Romney gjorde det altså ganske klart, at han ikke tilbyder et alternativ til den gældende voldsstrategi, hvorfor folk som er utilfredse med droneprogrammet, ikke har udsigter til nye linjer i den kommende administration, uanset hvem der sidder i toppen af den.

Droneprogrammet var for nylig genstand for sønderlemmende kritik i internationale medier i kølvandet på offentliggørelsen af et omfattende studium af programmets konsekvenser begået af forskere ved de juridiske fakulteter på universiteterne NYU og Stanford. Studiets formål var at foretage “en uafhængig undersøgelse angående hvorvidt, og i hvilket omfang, droneangreb i Pakistan er i overensstemmelse med folkeretten og gør [civile] fortræd.”

Rapporten er baseret på “over 130 detaljerede interviews med ofre og vidner til droneaktivitet, deres familiemedlemmer, nuværende og tidligere pakistanske embedsmænd, repræsentanter fra fem store pakistanske politiske partier, eksperter på området, advokater, lægefaglige professionelle, udviklings- og humanitære arbejdere, medlemmer af civilsamfundet, akademikere og journalister.”

I en opsummering af rapportens resultater kan man læse følgende:

"In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling "targeted killings” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false."

Rapporten beskriver hvordan droneprogrammet påvirker civilbefolkningen i det nordlige Pakistan:

"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.”

Denne statsterroristiske virksomhed har både Romneys og Obamas fulde opbakning og der var derfor ikke nogen som helst kritisk debat omkring droneprogrammet, da de kandidater som stiller sig kritisk overfor denne magtpraksis, bekvemt var udelukket fra debatten.

Obama-administrationen og Det Arabiske Forår.

Obama gentog i debatten en påstand han også fremførte under sin tale til FN for nylig, nemlig den, at USA stod på demokratiets side under Det Arabiske Forår sidste år. I debatten sagde han således:

"One thing I think Americans should be proud of, when Tunisians began to protest, this nation -- me, my administration -- stood with them earlier than just about any country. In Egypt we stood on the side of democracy. In Libya we stood on the side of the people."

Obama forsøger her at positionere sig på den kønnere side af historieskrivningen, idet han eksplicit nævner, at man støttede op om de ægyptiske, tunesiske og libyske befolkninger, mens han implicit siger, at USA var en stærk støtte for de mellemøstlige og nordafrikanske befolkninger, i deres kamp mod deres undertrykkere.

Obamas påstand om støtte til den ægyptiske befolkning er imidlertid ikke i nærheden af at være sand. Obama-administrationen støttede Hosni Mubaraks styre indtil ganske kort tid før præsidentens fald. Man trak først støtten og stillede sig retorisk på befolkningens side, da det var tydeligt, at Mubarak-styret med stor sandsynlighed ville falde. Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 omtalte han Mubarak som en "stålsat allieret" og "en stabiliserende kraft i regionen". Til spørgsmålet: "Anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?" svarede Obama "nej" og tilføjede: "Jeg undlader at klistre mærkater på folk".

Mubaraks Ægypten var næstefter Israel regionens største modtager af amerikansk støtte. Dette var ikke noget nyt som pludseligt opstod under Obama. Hans administration fortsatte blot over tredive års årlige økonomiske støtte i størrelsesordenen milliarder af amerikanske dollars. Dette til trods for, at man fra amerikansk officiel side vurderede menneskeretttighedssituationen ganske dyster. I udenrigsministeriets rapport fra 2008 kan man således læse den officielle vurdering af de ægyptiske tilstande under Hosni Mubarak.

Regeringens »respekt for menneskerettigheder forblev lav, og alvorlige misbrug fortsatte på mange områder … Sikkerhedsstyrkerne brugte uberrettiget dødbringende vold og torturerede og misbrugte fanger og tilbageholdne, i de fleste tilfælde straffrit. Vilkårene i fængsler og arrester var dårlige. Sikkerhedsstyrker anholdte og tilbageholdte individer vilkårligt, i nogle tilfælde af politiske grunde, og man holdt dem langvarigt varetægtsfængslede. Den udøvende magt udøvede kontrol over og pres på den dømmende magt. Regeringens respekt for foreningsfriheden og religionsfriheden vedblev med at være lav gennem året, og regeringen fortsatte med at begrænse NGOers virke. Regeringen begrænsede delvis ytringsfriheden.«

Det var imidlertid ikke blot i Ægypten, at Obama-administrationen ikke stod på de demokratiske aspirationers side. I Bahrain er støtten til styret fortsat, til trods for både voldsomme og enorme folkelige protester i hovedstaden og hinsides. Årsagen til dette er, at Bahrain huser den femte amerikanske flådebase hvorfor kongeriget tilhører en af de væsentligste amerikanske militære alliancepartnere i regionen. 

For en nærmere gennemgang, hvori det demonstreres, at Obama-administrationen støtter op om voldsomt repressive og udemokratiske regimer verden over, se min artikel fra 2010.

Anden del: Spørgsmålet om Irans atomprogram.

Obama Implements 'Precrime' 'Prolonged Detention'

WTF has Obama done so far?

* Proposed a three year freeze on domestic spending, exempting cuts from the Pentagon and Homeland Security.

* Backed off his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo.

* Promised $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

* Operated a "black site" at Bagram airbase where The Red Cross has reported detainee abuse.

* Won the right to deny Habeus Corpus to detainees.

* Eased restrictions on the use of child soldiers in Africa.

Source: Whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

Tariq Ali on Obama.

Chomsky: "There is Much More to Say."

Noam Chomsky expands upon his earlier comments regarding the assasination of Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad, Pakistan. Here is an excerpt:

"...It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq -- that is, to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.

Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression, at least if we take the Nuremberg Tribunal seriously. The crime of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State….” No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.

We might also do well to recall Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” And elsewhere: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”...."

Read the rest here.

Greenwald om Obama

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/17/obama/index.html

Memo For Obama

For: the President-Elect, Mr. Barack Obama.

From: Uri Avnery, Israel.

The following humble suggestions are based on my 70 years of experience as an underground fighter, special forces soldier in the 1948 war, editor-in-chief of a newsmagazine, member of the Knesset and founding member of a peace movement:

As far as Israeli-Arab peace is concerned, you should act from Day One.

Israeli elections are due to take place in February 2009. You can have an indirect but important and constructive impact on the outcome, by announcing your unequivocal determination to achieve Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-all-Arab peace in 2009.

Unfortunately, all your predecessors since 1967 have played a double game. While paying lip service to peace, and sometimes going through the motions of making some effort for peace, they have in practice supported our governments in moving in the very opposite direction. In particular, they have given tacit approval to the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories, each of which is a land mine on the road to peace.

All the settlements are illegal in international law. The distinction sometimes made between “illegal” outposts and the other settlements is a propaganda ploy designed to obscure this simple truth.

All the settlements since 1967 have been built with the express purpose of making a Palestinian state – and hence peace - impossible, by cutting the territory of the prospective State of Palestine into ribbons. Practically all our government departments and the army have openly or secretly helped to build, consolidate and enlarge the settlements – as confirmed by the 2005 report prepared for the government (!) by Lawyer Talia Sasson.

By now, the number of settlers in the West Bank has reached some 250,000 (apart from the 200,000 settlers in the Greater Jerusalem area, whose status is somewhat different.) They are politically isolated, and sometimes detested by the majority of the Israel public, but enjoy significant support in the army and government ministries.

No Israeli government would dare to confront the concentrated political and material might of the settlers. Such a confrontation would need very strong leadership and the unstinting support of the President of the United States to have any chance of success.

Lacking these, all “peace negotiations” are a sham. The Israeli government and its US backers have done everything possible to prevent the negotiations with both the Palestinians and the Syrians from reaching any conclusion, for fear of provoking a confrontation with the settlers and their supporters. The present “Annapolis” negotiations are as hollow as all the preceding ones, each side keeping up the pretense for its own political interests.

The Clinton administration, and even more so the Bush administration, allowed the Israeli government to keep up this pretense. It is therefore imperative to prevent members of these administrations from diverting your Middle Eastern policy into the old channels.

It is important for you to make a complete new start, and to state this publicly. Discredited ideas and failed initiatives – such as the Bush “vision”, the Road Map, Annapolis and the like – should by thrown into the junkyard of history.

To make a new start, the aim of American policy should be stated clearly and succinctly. This should be: to achieve a peace based on the Two-State Solution within a defined time-span (say by the end of 2009).

It should be pointed out that this aim is based on a reassessment of the American national interest, in order to extract the poison from American-Arab and American-Muslim relations, strengthen peace-oriented regimes, defeat al-Qaeda-type terrorism, end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and achieve a viable accommodation with Iran.

The terms of Israeli-Palestinian peace are clear. They have been crystallized in thousands of hours of negotiations, conferences, meetings and conversations. They are:

13.1 A sovereign and viable State of Palestine will be established side by side with the State of Israel.

13.2 The border between the two states will be based on the pre-1967 Armistice Line (the “Green Line”). Insubstantial alterations can be arrived at by mutual agreement on an exchange of territories on a 1:1 basis.

13.3 East Jerusalem, including the Haram-al-Sharif (“Temple Mount”) and all Arab neighborhoods will serve as the capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem, including the Western Wall and all Jewish neighborhoods, will serve as the capital of Israel. A joint municipal authority, based on equality, may be established by mutual consent to administer the city as one territorial unit.

13.4 All Israeli settlements – except any which might be joined to Israel in the framework of a mutually agreed exchange of territories - will be evacuated (see 15 below).

13.5 Israel will recognize in principle the right of the refugees to return. A Joint Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, composed of Palestinian, Israeli and international historians, will examine the events of 1948 and 1967 and determine who was responsible for what. Each individual refugee will be given the choice between
(1) repatriation to the State of Palestine,
(2) remaining where he/she is living now and receiving generous compensation,
(3) returning to Israel and being resettled,
(4) emigrating to any other country, with generous compensation.
The number of refugees who will return to Israeli territory will be fixed by mutual agreement, it being understood that nothing will be done that materially alters the demographic composition of the Israeli population. The large funds needed for the implementation of this solution must be provided by the international community in the interest of world peace. This will save much of the money spent today on military expenditure and direct grants from the US.

13.6 The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip constitute one national unit. An extraterritorial connection (road, railway, tunnel or bridge) will connect the West Bank with the Gaza Strip.

13.7 Israel and Syria will sign a peace agreement. Israel will withdraw to the pre-1967 line and all settlements on the Golan Heights will be dismantled. Syria will cease all anti-Israeli activities conducted directly or by proxy. The two parties will establish normal relations between them.

13.8 In accordance with the Saudi Peace Initiative, all member states of the Arab League will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it. Talks about a future Middle Eastern Union, on the model of the EU, possibly to include Turkey and Iran, may be considered.

Palestinian unity is essential for peace. Peace made with only one section of the people is worthless. The US will facilitate Palestinian reconciliation and the unification of Palestinian structures. To this end, the US will end its boycott of Hamas, which won the last elections, start a political dialogue with the movement and encourage Israel to do the same. The US will respect any result of democratic Palestinian elections.

The US will aid the government of Israel in confronting the settlement problem. As from now, settlers will be given one year to leave the occupied territories voluntarily in return for compensation that will allow them to build their homes in Israel proper. After that, all settlements – except those within any areas to be joined to Israel under the peace agreement - will be evacuated.

I suggest that you, as President of the United States, come to Israel and address the Israeli people personally, not only from the rostrum of the Knesset but also at a mass rally in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Israel in 1977, and, by addressing the Israeli people directly, completely changed their attitude towards peace with Egypt. At present, most Israelis feel insecure, uncertain and afraid of any daring peace initiative, partly because of a deep distrust of anything coming from the Arab side. Your personal intervention, at the critical moment, could literally do wonders in creating the psychological basis for peace.

This article was published in the current issue of the progressive Jewish-American monthly TIKKUN.

Analysis: Obama Defense Agenda Resembles Gates'

For a Democrat whose opposition to the Iraq war was a campaign centerpiece, President-elect Barack Obama is remarkably in sync with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on many core defense and national security issues — even Iraq.

The list of similarities suggests the early focus of Obama's Pentagon may not change dramatically from President George W. Bush's.

Given that Obama made the unprecedented decision to keep the incumbent Republican defense secretary, it would seem natural to expect that they see eye to eye on at least some major defense issues. But the extent of their shared priorities is surprising, given Obama's campaign criticisms of Bush's defense policies.

In his first public comments about signing on with the incoming administration, Gates said Tuesday that in his decisive meeting with the president-elect in November, they talked more about how his appointment would be made and how it would work in practice, than about substantive policy issues.

The two "share a common view about the importance of integrating all elements of American power to make us more secure and defeat the threats of the 21st century," Brooke Anderson, the Obama transition office's chief national security spokeswoman, said Saturday.

She said Obama "appreciates Secretary Gates' pragmatism and competence and his commitment to a sustainable national security strategy that is built on bipartisan consensus here at home."

The apparent harmony between Gates and Obama on broad defense and national security aims is on display in a Foreign Affairs magazine article by the defense chief that was released Thursday. Gates lays out a comprehensive agenda based on the Bush administration's new National Defense Strategy. In numerous ways it meshes with the defense priorities that Obama espoused during the campaign. Examples include:

_better integrating and coordinating military efforts with civilian agencies, including the State Department. This is one of the lessons the Bush administration learned from the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, where initial combat efforts went well, only to fail to avert destabilizing insurgencies.

_building up the security capacity of partner nations. This is central to a belief, advocated by Gates and shared by Obama, that the fight against Islamic extremism — what the Bush administration calls the war on terror — cannot succeed in the long run without help from allies and partners.

_not overlooking the possibility of future threats from conventional military powers, even while continuing to focus on prevailing in the counterinsurgency campaigns where conventional firepower plays a lesser role.

There also are points of potential differences between Obama and Gates: closing the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expanding the U.S. missile defense system into Eastern Europe.

Gates advocates both, but on Guantanamo he lost the argument in Bush administration councils.

Obama has been unequivocal that he will close the prison. On missile defense, he has indicated support in general while emphasizing it must not divert resources from other priorities "until we are positive the technology will protect the American people." That condition could lead to delays in the Europe project, although the Pentagon managed a successful test intercept of a target missile over the Pacific on Friday.

But even on Iraq, Gates said that he considers Obama's focus on troop withdrawals to be an "agreeable approach," given that Obama has said he would listen to his commanders on how to proceed. Reminded that he previously had opposed setting a firm timetable for withdrawal, Gates said the situation changed when the Bush administration accepted Iraq's demand for an agreement in writing to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and to withdraw entirely by Dec. 31, 2011.

"So we will confront or have a different kind of situation in Iraq at the end of June 2009 than we would have thought perhaps in June of 2008," Gates said. "And I think that the commanders are already looking at what the implications of that are, in terms of the potential for accelerating the drawdown."

Obama has said he believes a full withdrawal of combat troops can be accomplished within 16 months of his swearing in on Jan. 20. But he also has said the withdrawal should be done responsibly. This appears in line with indications that in a meeting last July in Baghdad with Gen. David Petraeus — then the top U.S. commander in Iraq and now the overseer of U.S. military operations across the Middle East — Obama gave hints, if not outright assurances, that he could be flexible on a pullout timetable.

Both Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, who will remain as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after Obama takes office, have stressed their eagerness to shift resources, including troops, from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the insurgency has grown in intensity. That, too, is in line with Obama's agenda.

Obama has pledged to continue the expansion of the Army and the Marine Corps that Gates started. They are on the same page, too, with regard to overhauling Pentagon's procurement system.

Also, both emphasize a need to improve the government's ability to address concerns of military families who are under strain from repeated, lengthy and frequent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

EDITOR'S NOTE — Robert Burns has covered defense and national security issues for The Associated Press since 1990.

kilde: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_el_pr/obama_on_defense/print

Obama-McCain Første Tv-Duel

Transkription af TV-Duellen

Barack Obama's bud på en ny udenrigspolitik

I Foreign Affairs juli/august udgave kunne man læse et essay af Barack Obama med titlen "Renewing American Leadership". Følgende er nogle highlights:

"...we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.
The morass in Iraq has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region -- and it has made many of those problems considerably more dangerous. Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years."

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must forge a more effective global response to the terrorism that came to our shores on an unprecedented scale on 9/11. From Bali to London, Baghdad to Algiers, Mumbai to Mombasa to Madrid, terrorists who reject modernity, oppose America, and distort Islam have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of people just this decade. Because this enemy operates globally, it must be confronted globally.
We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively. We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces. Our strategy must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads."

"There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans. To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.
We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.
We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness."

" To succeed, our homeland security and counterterrorism actions must be linked to an intelligence community that deals effectively with the threats we face. Today, we rely largely on the same institutions and practices that were in place before 9/11. We need to revisit intelligence reform, going beyond rearranging boxes on an organizational chart. To keep pace with highly adaptable enemies, we need technologies and practices that enable us to efficiently collect and share information within and across our intelligence agencies. We must invest still more in human intelligence and deploy additional trained operatives and diplomats with specialized knowledge of local cultures and languages. And we should institutionalize the practice of developing competitive assessments of critical threats and strengthen our methodologies of analysis."

Læs resten her

Check endvidere mit indlæg om Rudolf Giulianis udenrigspolitiske aspirationer her