A New Strategy for a
Senator Barack Obama
Washington, D.C.
July 15, 2008
Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan
that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United
States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This
menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on
an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn’t yet have an atomic bomb, but before
long it would.
The challenge facing the greatest generation of
Americans – the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield – was
how to contain this threat while extending freedom’s frontiers. Leaders like
Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive
blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to
meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.
Such a strategy would join overwhelming military
strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military
force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence
and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of
liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new
international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank,
and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the
world’s dangers, while seizing its promise.
As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage
war. But the Marshall Plan – which was just one part of this strategy – helped
rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to
defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or
definitive declarations – but rather with questions and a call for perspective.
“The whole world of the future,” Marshall said, “hangs on a proper judgment.”
To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events
that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking:
“What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?”
What is needed? What can best be done? What must
be done?
Today’s dangers are different, though no less grave. The
power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands
of terrorists. The future of our security – and our planet – is held hostage to
our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of
northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know
that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of
our military alone.
The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality
into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world
of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to
suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.
But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency
and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in
the United States Congress, Americans were united – more united, even, than we
were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the
perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time
adversaries stood by our side. It was time – once again – for America’s might
and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new
security strategy for an ever-changing world.
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.
I am running for President of the United States to lead
this country in a new direction – to seize this moment’s promise. Instead of
being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to
overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to
the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American
power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating
ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.
As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and
principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have
interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and
London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals
essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly;
finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear
weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy
security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st
century.
My opponent in this campaign has served this country
with honor, and we all respect his sacrifice. We both want to do what we think
is best to defend the American people. But we’ve made different judgments, and
would lead in very different directions. That starts with Iraq.
I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one
of Washington’s biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a
country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and
distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain
claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread
across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important
strategic question since the end of the Cold War.
Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look
back – we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What
can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our
tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider
world.
It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the
surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in
lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to
protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used
to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite
militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all
Americans welcome them.
For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains
of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this
argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly
ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.
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.
Now, Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the removal of U.S.
forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American
general in charge of training Iraq’s Security Forces has testified that Iraq’s
Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security in
2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that
pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and
refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.
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.
Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our
strategy to face threats beyond Iraq’s borders.
At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not
going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to
make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate
every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we
leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when
they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false
rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory
in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down
their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government
that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents
sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten
back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a
comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.
To achieve that success, I will give our military a new
mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be
as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely
redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.
That would be the summer of 2010 – one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be
prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years
after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to
perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda;
protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting
Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.
We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this
strategy – that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have
consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi
government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later.
We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the
more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support
Iraq’s future – one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United
Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union – because we all have a stake
in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no
permanent bases in Iraq.
This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future
that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand.
Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken
out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just
coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government
has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services
provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollars.
And this is the future we need for our military. We
cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn’t made us
safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase
of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in
the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the
unconventional challenges of our time.
So let’s be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops
continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10
billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their
own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term
stability. That’s victory. That’s success. That’s what’s best for Iraq, that’s
what’s best for America, and that’s why I will end this war as President.
In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush
and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it
never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the
fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly
3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording
messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls
parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is
probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from
Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will
likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have
five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.
Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our
diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies
are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we
lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s
what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And
that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the
Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.
I will send at least two additional combat brigades to
Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer
restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security
forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives
for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the
Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must
realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field
of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police
station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.
Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed
Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up.
That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance
each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure
investments are made – not just in Kabul – but out in Afghanistan’s provinces.
As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to
poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking.
We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people
must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security
of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.
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.
Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move
toward my third goal – securing all nuclear weapons and materials from
terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is
that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country
that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us
into a misguided war doesn’t diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon
of mass destruction – in fact, it has only increased it.
In those years after World War II, we worried about the
deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons
of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear
facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a
non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold
War. Now, we worry – most of all – about a rogue state or nuclear scientist
transferring the world’s deadliest weapons to the world’s most dangerous
people: terrorists who won’t think twice about killing themselves and hundreds
of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.
We cannot wait any longer to protect the American
people. I’ve made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican
Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear
materials. I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials
around the world during my first term as President. And I’ll develop new
defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological
weapons and cyber-terrorism – threats that I’ll discuss in more detail
tomorrow.
Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it’s time to send a clear message:
America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons
exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick
them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian
ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the
stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the
production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban
on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our
commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better
position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In
particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.
We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of
nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear
weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of
statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a
failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear
program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use
all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with
aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong
sanctions and without preconditions.
There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of
our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in
that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to
a change in Iranian behavior. That’s why we must pursue these tough
negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full
influence – including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the
appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.
We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the
Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your
nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be
meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure,
with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the
Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian
regime. That’s the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by
waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.
The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the
long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my
fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.
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 immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term
threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns,
terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for
food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known
horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South
Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and
the disappearance of our coastline.
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.
This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that
will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two
decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We’ll invest
in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind,
and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear
power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the
United States of America is ready to lead again.
Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in
the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to
the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new
Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of
climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and
work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global
economy. We’ll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And
as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our
technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.
That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of
the global good. And that will be my fifth goal – rebuilding our alliances to
meet the common challenges of the 21st century.
For all of our power, America is strongest when we act
alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time
alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO
allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first
Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the
United Nations – not to constrain America’s influence, but to amplify it by
advancing our values.
Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation.
It’s time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down
the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the
20th. It’s time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South
Korea, Australia and the world’s largest democracy – India – to create a stable
and prosperous Asia. It’s time to engage China on common interests like climate
change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and
market-based society. It’s time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our
allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It’s
time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can
become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and
promote our values. It’s time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the
Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting
security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for
statehood.
And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape
new ones to meet new challenges. That’s why I’ll create a Shared Security
Partnership Program – a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative
efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against
torture and brutality. That’s why we’ll work with the African Union to enhance
its ability to keep the peace. That’s why we’ll build a new partnership to roll
back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That’s what
we can do if we are ready to engage the world.
We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet
critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular
program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it
can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire
world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today.
That’s why I’ll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use
it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in
Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. 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.
None of this will be easy, but we have faced great odds
before. When General Marshall first spoke about the plan that would bear his
name, the rubble of Berlin had not yet been built into a wall. But Marshall
knew that even the fiercest of adversaries could forge bonds of friendship
founded in freedom. He had the confidence to know that the purpose and
pragmatism of the American people could outlast any foe. Today, the
dangers and divisions that came with the dawn of the Cold War have receded. Now,
the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational
threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We
know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose
and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to
lead the world anew.
###