Explore Candidates → President → Barack Obama on Iraq and Foreign Policy
Barack Obama
on
Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Abortion and Birth Control
- Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
- Crime and Punishment
- Education
- Environment and Energy
- Gay Rights
- Government and Elections
- Gun Control
- Health Care
- Immigration
- Internet and Media
- Iraq and Foreign Policy
- Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy
- Religion and Public Life
- Science
- Social Security
- Taxes and Budget
- Trade and Economics
Q: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside [Pakistan]." OBAMA: "Well what I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. Now my hope is that it doesn't come to that.... One of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral."
“I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave.”
On Sunday (7.20.08), the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.
Q: "And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?" OBAMA: "I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"We've got to have a protective force on the ground. And it's now been authorized by the United Nations Security Council, but we have to push through any additional resistance that there may be. The United States has to make firm commitments in terms of the logistics and the transport and the equipping of these troops to make sure that they're actually effective on the ground.... We can't say never again and then allow it to happen again."
Sen. Obama (D-IL), whose father was Kenyan, has been particularly vocal in the Senate on U.S. Africa policy. He has been especially outspoken regarding policy toward Darfur, traveling to the region with Sen. Brownback. He calls for a no-fly zone over Darfur. In 2005, Obama cosponsored the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. He says he has divested (AP) about $180,000 of his personal financial holdings from Sudan-related stock.
"With respect to Iran, it is sufficient to say that I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force to protect the homeland and United States interests. But where I disagree with you is the notion that we have exhausted every other resource, because the fact of the matter is that for six, seven years of this administration we weren't working as close as we needed to with the Europeans to create [inaudible}"
"Conventional thinking in Washington says that Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy...Not talking doesn't make us look tough it makes us look arrogant. It doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough principled diplomacy works and that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq."
"I will meet not only with our friends but with our Enemies... Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries and tell them where America stands."
"Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? A: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
"That effort [for peace and security in the Middle East] begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point…. We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.”
Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
"[The US should] use American moral authority and credibility to help achieve Middle East peace. Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy. We must be consistent and we must include the EU and the Arab States in pressing for reforms within the Palestinian community."
Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership " Jul 12, 2004 (quote)
Sen. Obama (S-IL) has taken a strongly pro-Israel tone in addressing the conflict. In a speech before AIPAC in March 2007, Obama said the United States must "strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates" and isolate Hamas. Haaretz U.S. correspondent Shmuel Rosner said that before AIPAC, Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani."
"It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba - through strong, smart and principled diplomacy."
"I think it is time for us to end the embargo on Cuba..."
"Now as president, I am not going to take off the embargo. It's an important inducement for change because we know when Castro is done it will not automatically guarantee freedom..."
Sen. Obama (D-IL) has broken with the status quo on U.S. policy toward Cuba. In August 2007, he called for travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban-Americans to be lifted. In an op-ed in the Miami Herald, Obama also said he would engage in bilateral talks with Cuba to send the message that the United States is willing to normalize relations with Cuba upon evidence of a democratic opening there.
U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs.
"For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity."
Barack Obama believes that strengthening weak states at risk of collapse, economic meltdown or public health crises strengthens America's security. Obama will double U.S. spending on foreign aid to $50 billion a year by 2012. He will help developing countries invest in sustainable democracies and demand more accountability in return. Obama will establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to eliminate the global education deficit. He will reduce the debt of developing nations and better coordinate trade and development policies.
Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007
"The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached."
Sen. Obama (D-IL) has repeatedly said that the United Nations should play a key role in managing crises like Darfur. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama voted against the Bolton nomination. His comments during those hearings provide a sense of his stance on the United Nations, including the need for reform: "Countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, and others that do not want to see reform take place at the UN, are going to be able to dismiss our efforts at reform by saying: Mr. Bolton is a UN basher, someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of the UN--thereby using Mr. Bolton's own words and lack of credibility as a shield to prevent the very reforms that need to take place."
"As President...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
"Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, 'The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.' Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads."
"The first thing I would do is a thorough review and restart our conversation with Russia about the goal that have already been set in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which says that we should make every effort to reduce our nuclear stockpile. I do not want to reduce nuclear stockpiles unilaterally."
"In Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable for withdrawal. That is the view of the vast majority of Iraqis as well.... If we have a timetable, and they suddenly see the urgency behind the fact that the American troops are going to be leaving and they need to get their act together, then this is the perfect moment for us to say: We are going to shift our resources [to Afghanistan]."
" We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."
Introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act, a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.
Sen. Obama, on his Web site, says that the drawdowns would begin "immediately" and continue at a pace of one to two brigades - which each normally number between 3,500 and 4,500 troops - per month. He hopes to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, or by the middle of 2010.
He [Obama] disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war - he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.
"Q: How do we pull out now, without opening Iraq up for Iran and Syria? A: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight."
2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
"We shouldn't be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It's time to find an end to this war. That's why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our combat forces from the country by March of 2008."
2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007
"I think that there is no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that is testimony to the troops that were sent and to General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated..."
"They [additional troops] are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders."
"Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict. Extending the surge is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war."
Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007
In January 2007, Obama proposed the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which would reverse the troop surge and redeploy U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other locations in phases.
A spokesman for Obama said any long-term U.S. security commitment to Iraq must be subject to Congressional approval; alternatively the administration should seek an extension of the current UN mandate. Obama wants a new administration to make it "absolutely clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," said spokesman Bill Burton.
Obama foreign-policy adviser Dennis McDonough says the Democratic front-runner wants the residual U.S. forces to focus on counterterrorism - largely directed against al Qaeda in Iraq, the homegrown extremist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians - and protecting the enormous U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Mr. McDonough says Sen. Obama is open to leaving additional forces in Iraq to train and advise Iraqi security forces, but only if the Iraqi government takes steps to reconcile the country's sectarian groups. Absent such progress, Sen. Obama would halt the training effort, he said. "Our support wouldn't be open-ended," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Sen. Obama...Mr. McDonough declined to say how many troops Sen. Obama hoped to have in Iraq after the initial 16 months of withdrawals. But another senior adviser said that Mr. Obama was comfortable with a long-term U.S. troop presence of around five brigades, which - depending on the numbers of support troops and other personnel - would likely leave around 35,000 troops in Iraq.
"We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there."
2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
"We have to make sure we're not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that's why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists."
2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007
Q: You're in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long? A:...In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.
IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004
"Q: What would you do with the huge embassy that we've built? A: Well, that raises a whole other set of questions. Q: And the (military) bases. A: I've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq. Q: Would you leave the embassy? A: We have to have an embassy, absolutely. Now the fact that we built this Xanadu in the middle of Baghdad, I would question the wisdom of that."
"[W]e're not going to be able to immediately bring out all those private contractors because they have essentially served as a stopgap for the inadequate numbers of troops that were originally sent… And part of it also then means that we will have troops instead -- and U.S. military personnel as opposed to private contractors in these positions."
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require the Pentagon and State Department to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, rather than continually handing off governmental jobs to well-connected companies. An Obama-Biden administration will create the transparency and accountability needed for good governance. Finally, it will establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors.
"I think it puts our troops in harm's way. I think it creates some difficult morale issues when you've got private contractors getting paid 10 times what an Army private's getting paid for work that carries similar risks. When it comes to our special forces, what we've seen is that it's a potential drain of some of our best-trained special forces, and you can't blame them if they can make so much more working for Blackwater than they can working as a master sergeant. That, I think is a problem. [I]f… you start making decisions on armed engagement based on the availability of private contractors to fill holes and gaps that over time you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military's relationship to the nation and how accountability is structured. I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. And to set those kinds of precedents, I think, will lead us over the long term into some troubled waters."
"When it comes to private contractors, there is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past. I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements."
"Yes I think we need more troops [in Afghanistan]. I have been saying that for over a year now, and I think we have to do it as quickly as possible.... We cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan. So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.... We have four times more troops [in Iraq] than we do in Afghanistan, and that is a strategic mistake."
Narrator: "Obama's immediate answer is more troops [in Afghanistan]. He said commanders told him they could use at least two, maybe three additional brigades." OBAMA: "I think it is important for us to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan, and I think that would be a mistake."