Monday, September 9, 2013

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand. BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013




Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.
Officials were also warned that Iran might launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East, including terrorist strikes, if it believed the United States was complicit in Iraq's chemical warfare campaign.
"As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings," the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. "Tehran would take such evidence to the U.N. and charge U.S. complicity in violating international law."
At the time, the military attaché's office was following Iraqi preparations for the offensive using satellite reconnaissance imagery, Francona told Foreign Policy. According to a former CIA official, the images showed Iraqi movements of chemical materials to artillery batteries opposite Iranian positions prior to each offensive.
Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as "GA") against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.
The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq's chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in a top secret document.
But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.
The CIA noted in one document that the use of nerve agent "could have a significant impact on Iran's human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy." Those tactics, which involved Iranian forces swarming against conventionally armed Iraqi positions, had proved decisive in some battles. In March 1984, the CIA reported that Iraq had "begun using nerve agents on the Al Basrah front and likely will be able to employ it in militarily significant quantities by late this fall."
The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties "will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the" agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. The Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the production and use of such arms, wasn't passed until 1997, years after the incidents in question.
The initial wave of Iraqi attacks, in 1983, used mustard agent. While generally not fatal, mustard causes severe blistering of the skin and mucus membranes, which can lead to potentially fatal infections, and can cause blindness and upper respiratory disease, while increasing the risk of cancer. The United States wasn't yet providing battlefield intelligence to Iraq when mustard was used. But it also did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light. Nor did the administration inform the United Nations. The CIA determined that Iran had the capability to bomb the weapons assembly facilities, if only it could find them. The CIA believed it knew the locations.


Hard evidence of the Iraqi chemical attacks came to light in 1984. But that did little to deter Hussein from using the lethal agents, including in strikes against his own people. For as much as the CIA knew about Hussein's use of chemical weapons, officials resisted providing Iraq with intelligence throughout much of the war. The Defense Department had proposed an intelligence-sharing program with the Iraqis in 1986. But according to Francona, it was nixed because the CIA and the State Department viewed Saddam Hussein as "anathema" and his officials as "thugs."
The situation changed in 1987. CIA reconnaissance satellites picked up clear indications that the Iranians were concentrating large numbers of troops and equipment east of the city of Basrah, according to Francona, who was then serving with the Defense Intelligence Agency. What concerned DIA analysts the most was that the satellite imagery showed that the Iranians had discovered a gaping hole in the Iraqi lines southeast of Basrah. The seam had opened up at the junction between the Iraqi III Corps, deployed east of the city, and the Iraqi VII Corps, which was deployed to the southeast of the city in and around the hotly contested Fao Peninsula.
The satellites detected Iranian engineering and bridging units being secretly moved to deployment areas opposite the gap in the Iraqi lines, indicating that this was going to be where the main force of the annual Iranian spring offensive was going to fall, Francona said.
In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona's shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled "At The Gates of Basrah," warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.
President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: "An Iranian victory is unacceptable."
Subsequently, a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as "targeting packages" suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.
The sarin attacks then followed.
The nerve agent causes dizziness, respiratory distress, and muscle convulsions, and can lead to death. CIA analysts could not precisely determine the Iranian casualty figures because they lacked access to Iranian officials and documents. But the agency gauged the number of dead as somewhere between "hundreds" and "thousands" in each of the four cases where chemical weapons were used prior to a military offensive. According to the CIA, two-thirds of all chemical weapons ever used by Iraq during its war with Iran were fired or dropped in the last 18 months of the war.
By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein's military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.
A month later, the Iraqis used aerial bombs and artillery shells filled with sarin against Iranian troop concentrations on the Fao Peninsula southeast of Basrah, helping the Iraqi forces win a major victory and recapture the entire peninsula. The success of the Fao Peninsula offensive also prevented the Iranians from launching their much-anticipated offensive to capture Basrah. According to Francona, Washington was very pleased with the result because the Iranians never got a chance to launch their offensive.
The level of insight into Iraq's chemical weapons program stands in marked contrast to the flawed assessments, provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies about Iraq's program prior to the United States' invasion in 2003. Back then, American intelligence had better access to the region and could send officials out to assess the damage.
Francona visited the Fao Peninsula shortly after it had been captured by the Iraqis. He found the battlefield littered with hundreds of used injectors once filled with atropine, the drug commonly used to treat sarin's lethal effects. Francona scooped up a few of the injectors and brought them back to Baghdad -- proof that the Iraqis had used sarin on the Fao Peninsula.
In the ensuing months, Francona reported, the Iraqis used sarin in massive quantities three more times in conjunction with massed artillery fire and smoke to disguise the use of nerve agents. Each offensive was hugely successful, in large part because of the increasingly sophisticated use of mass quantities of nerve agents. The last of these attacks, called the Blessed Ramadan Offensive, was launched by the Iraqis in April 1988 and involved the largest use of sarin nerve agent employed by the Iraqis to date. For a quarter-century, no chemical attack came close to the scale of Saddam's unconventional assaults. Until, perhaps, the strikes last week outside of Damascus.
Click to the next page to read the secret CIA files.


Hard evidence of the Iraqi chemical attacks came to light in 1984. But that did little to deter Hussein from using the lethal agents, including in strikes against his own people. For as much as the CIA knew about Hussein's use of chemical weapons, officials resisted providing Iraq with intelligence throughout much of the war. The Defense Department had proposed an intelligence-sharing program with the Iraqis in 1986. But according to Francona, it was nixed because the CIA and the State Department viewed Saddam Hussein as "anathema" and his officials as "thugs."
The situation changed in 1987. CIA reconnaissance satellites picked up clear indications that the Iranians were concentrating large numbers of troops and equipment east of the city of Basrah, according to Francona, who was then serving with the Defense Intelligence Agency. What concerned DIA analysts the most was that the satellite imagery showed that the Iranians had discovered a gaping hole in the Iraqi lines southeast of Basrah. The seam had opened up at the junction between the Iraqi III Corps, deployed east of the city, and the Iraqi VII Corps, which was deployed to the southeast of the city in and around the hotly contested Fao Peninsula.
The satellites detected Iranian engineering and bridging units being secretly moved to deployment areas opposite the gap in the Iraqi lines, indicating that this was going to be where the main force of the annual Iranian spring offensive was going to fall, Francona said.
In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona's shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled "At The Gates of Basrah," warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.
President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: "An Iranian victory is unacceptable."
Subsequently, a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as "targeting packages" suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.
The sarin attacks then followed.
The nerve agent causes dizziness, respiratory distress, and muscle convulsions, and can lead to death. CIA analysts could not precisely determine the Iranian casualty figures because they lacked access to Iranian officials and documents. But the agency gauged the number of dead as somewhere between "hundreds" and "thousands" in each of the four cases where chemical weapons were used prior to a military offensive. According to the CIA, two-thirds of all chemical weapons ever used by Iraq during its war with Iran were fired or dropped in the last 18 months of the war.
By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein's military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.
A month later, the Iraqis used aerial bombs and artillery shells filled with sarin against Iranian troop concentrations on the Fao Peninsula southeast of Basrah, helping the Iraqi forces win a major victory and recapture the entire peninsula. The success of the Fao Peninsula offensive also prevented the Iranians from launching their much-anticipated offensive to capture Basrah. According to Francona, Washington was very pleased with the result because the Iranians never got a chance to launch their offensive.
The level of insight into Iraq's chemical weapons program stands in marked contrast to the flawed assessments, provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies about Iraq's program prior to the United States' invasion in 2003. Back then, American intelligence had better access to the region and could send officials out to assess the damage.
Francona visited the Fao Peninsula shortly after it had been captured by the Iraqis. He found the battlefield littered with hundreds of used injectors once filled with atropine, the drug commonly used to treat sarin's lethal effects. Francona scooped up a few of the injectors and brought them back to Baghdad -- proof that the Iraqis had used sarin on the Fao Peninsula.
In the ensuing months, Francona reported, the Iraqis used sarin in massive quantities three more times in conjunction with massed artillery fire and smoke to disguise the use of nerve agents. Each offensive was hugely successful, in large part because of the increasingly sophisticated use of mass quantities of nerve agents. The last of these attacks, called the Blessed Ramadan Offensive, was launched by the Iraqis in April 1988 and involved the largest use of sarin nerve agent employed by the Iraqis to date. For a quarter-century, no chemical attack came close to the scale of Saddam's unconventional assaults. Until, perhaps, the strikes last week outside of Damascus.
Click to the next page to read the secret CIA files.
 

Forums

Littwin: America's lesson from Libya




Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby admin on August 28th, 2011, 3:58 am #2083033
It's still too soon to know how things will turn out down the road in Libya, but it's never too early, in pundit-time, to start drawing conclusions.
I was opposed to an American role in the Libyan war. It seemed like we'd been there too often before, that we've constantly been bogged down in endless wars that we didn't know how to, well, end.
That's the lesson of Afghanistan, a...


Post your comments on the Denver Post article, Littwin: America's lesson from Libya (click that link to go back and read the article).
User avatar
admin
The Denver Post
The Denver's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Rocky Reader
Post Subscriber
Site Admin
 
Badges: 19
Zip Code: 80202
Posts: 84058
Joined: March 30th, 2007, 11:29 am


5 points
(21 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby Silverspruce on August 28th, 2011, 4:18 am #2083035
As a long-time independent voter, I don't think any President is born to the job, and Obama is no exception. What Presidents must have, however is good judgement and the ability to learn. Obama has shown that he does with Bin Laden and Libya. I wish he had put jobs ahead of Obamacare, but better late than never. He is crippled, however, by the Tea Party/Republicans personal hatred of him, racial and otherwise, which exceeds any desire they may have to help the economy. Their default/blackmail games in D.C. last month proved that. I predict they will pay a crushing price in 2012 for their political obstinance, and rightfully so. In the meantime, the American people continue to suffer. Obama, however, is beginning to act like a President, and I like what I see.
Silverspruce
Richard
Richard's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 11
Zip Code: 80863
Posts: 627
Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 4:02 am

-3 points
(13 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby Reality1 on August 28th, 2011, 4:56 am #2083049
Mike, you left out that one of the big reasons Obama FOLLOWED France's lead is, to steal Bush haters mantra,'It's all about oil'. Western Europe relies on Libya for a lot of it's oil. The jury's still out on whether this war was a good move. Are we going to get a democratic gov't or an islamist state? Egypt is looking to possibly go with the Muslim Brotherhood,which is not good. We need a tolerant democracy, not a theocracy. Obama's move has assured us nothing but another bill that has to be paid.
Reality1
james p
james's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 14
Zip Code: 80233
Posts: 570
Joined: December 8th, 2009, 7:02 am

-1 points
(17 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby joevg3 on August 28th, 2011, 5:29 am #2083065
Silverspruce wrote: He is crippled, however, by the Tea Party/Republicans personal hatred of him, racial and otherwise, which exceeds any desire they may have to help the economy. Their default/blackmail games in D.C. last month proved that.


Umm, how long have you followed politics? I recall the libs/dems had the "super majority" controlling both House, Senate and Executive branch. They could have passed a budget, but didn't. Why? Because they are not leaders, only followers. Obama is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Why? Obamacare, Economy, Jobs, Wars, Gittmo, Golf (he played more rounds of golf than pros did this month - Google Paul Azinger/Obama/Golf)
I am on the fence politically - I thought Bush was not the answer, and did a poor job. However, Obama is just too stupid to know that he is not the smartest person in the room.
joevg3
JG J
JG's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 5
Zip Code: 80108
Posts: 11
Joined: November 19th, 2008, 6:56 pm

1 points
(17 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby dillwinkle on August 28th, 2011, 5:51 am #2083085
I thought you Lefties were pacifists and now you're gloating over what you perceive as your Nobel "Peace" Prize winner Obama's "victory" in Libya?
Image
Image
dillwinkle
joe f
joe's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Banned User
 
Badges: 7
Posts: 477
Joined: November 26th, 2010, 2:00 pm

-2 points
(6 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby Sid on August 28th, 2011, 5:57 am #2083091
Reality1 wrote:Mike, you left out that one of the big reasons Obama FOLLOWED France's lead is, to steal Bush haters mantra,'It's all about oil'. Western Europe relies on Libya for a lot of it's oil. The jury's still out on whether this war was a good move. Are we going to get a democratic gov't or an islamist state? Egypt is looking to possibly go with the Muslim Brotherhood,which is not good. We need a tolerant democracy, not a theocracy. Obama's move has assured us nothing but another bill that has to be paid.



Wars are always a bad move, and always the end result of many previous bad moves working in combination with each other.

This one is no different than any other, and will just be one of the bad moves that leads to the next one when it comes.
"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." (Barack Obama August 21, 2010)
Sid
Sid James
Sid's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 30
Posts: 17713
Joined: November 24th, 2007, 10:58 am

-2 points
(12 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby joevg3 on August 28th, 2011, 6:01 am #2083097
Silverspruce wrote:
He is crippled, however, by the Tea Party/Republicans personal hatred of him, racial and otherwise, which exceeds any desire they may have to help the economy. Their default/blackmail games in D.C. last month proved that.

Umm, how long have you followed politics? I recall the libs/dems had the "super majority" controlling both House, Senate and Executive branch. They could have passed a budget, but didn't. Why? Because they are not leaders, only followers. Obama is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Why? Obamacare, Economy, Jobs, Wars, Gittmo, Golf (he played more rounds of golf than pros did this month - Google Paul Azinger/Obama/Golf)
I am on the fence politically - I thought Bush was not the answer, and did a poor job. However, Obama is just too stupid to know that he is not the smartest person in the room.

**I also forgot to mention - Biden. Holy crap, what a joke. He may be more clueless than Obama. **DISCLOSURE** I am not a physisist, so I am not certain if that's possible.
joevg3
JG J
JG's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 5
Zip Code: 80108
Posts: 11
Joined: November 19th, 2008, 6:56 pm

-2 points
(10 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby Tumultuous on August 28th, 2011, 6:26 am #2083132
Most do not realize that the rebel forces are made up of the militant Muslum Brotherhood and now AlQadea! Both of which were illegal under the current regime....Looks as the U.S. needed a war, more blood for oil as France wants their share of oil contracts now.
Tumultuous
Tim P
Tim's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 22
Zip Code: 80644
Posts: 2022
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 3:31 pm

-4 points
(14 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby thinkingahead on August 28th, 2011, 7:01 am #2083162
So now the left is making lemon ade without the lemons. Littwin is making several points of the right,

No President, even a radical leftist like Obama, isn't going to loose a war. Obama has done just that in Iraq and Afghanistan. And by keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

So now it's Armistice because of the our limited involvement in Libya. This is exactly what Obama and the left have been wanting for years, America's limited involvement. A second RATE country. France gets more credit, welcome to obamaville.

Littwin also is giving Obama credit for what Obama calls bad luck. Obama said that his jobs plan, and the dismal economy ran into bad luck with the tsunami, and the Arab Spring.

The left is in such desperation to have something, anything, positive surrounding Obama that he is now a war President. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Time will tell now Libya ends up. Hopefully it works out for the Libyan people. Wasn't is George W. Bush who said, as the Iraqi people were voting, "that freedom will spread in the middle east."
thinkingahead
KD D
KD's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 30
Posts: 2578
Joined: February 27th, 2009, 5:51 am

0
(12 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby racer on August 28th, 2011, 7:05 am #2083165
Sorry but I can't believe that we did not have "boots on the ground". They may not have been there openly but I bet they were there. Does any one believe anything that John Kerry says anymore, I sure don't. I was sitting here thinking about what lesson we can learn from Libya and really I am not sure what that would be except maybe how to not run a civil war or who to ask for help. America should have stayed out of this fight. As always just my opinion.
User avatar
racer
Zinka T
Zinka's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 23
Zip Code: 80501
Posts: 4163
Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:44 am

-1 points
(9 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby ALLEN E on August 28th, 2011, 7:59 am #2083232
That's the lesson of Afghanistan, after all — that once you're in, you can't figure how to get out. Actually, it was worse than that. We spent many years fighting in Afghanistan while barely remembering that our troops were even there. ------ from Littwin's piece


Mike, it is easy to get out of Afghanistan. Pull a Viet Nam. Bring all of media to Washington for the grand announcement. Make the announcement on April 1, 2012. "I am here today to declare that the United States has accomplished its objectives in the region. And, we are now handing the country back to its people." Load up the transports, and bring the men and women home. Mission accomplished, and end of our involvement in Afghanistan.

Now, well that happen? Hell, no.

Turn the channel to Libya. We don't yet if Gadhafi is defeated. Loyalists are still fighting, and Gadhafi continues to show on t.v., or the radio, annoucing he wants the infidels killed. But, where is he? Is he in Tripoli? In the desert? Has he fled the country, taking with him the three Russian nurses who know nothing about medicine, or healthcare?

I did not want boots on the ground in Libya. And, I didn't want us to stay away as most conservatives proclaimed. We led the charge at the outset with Tomahawk missiles (at the expense of $900,000,000). Then, we allowed the NATO high command to do their job, slowly, ever so slowly.

Is Libya is victory for Obama? I will guarantee one thing. You will not see a post from a conservative congratulating Obama for the approach taken. Despite the fact that every president since Nixon repudiated the War Powers Act, including but not limited to Mr. Reagan, the complaint was Obama did not get a hall pass from Boehner.

Back to the question, is Libya a victory for Obama? Only if you believe he has a good grasp of how to manage our military assets in defeating enemies abroad, and finding terrorists in hiding.
Ich rieche Blut
ALLEN E
ALLEN E H
ALLEN E's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Rocky Reader
Certified Commenter
Broncos Fan Since: 1968
Nuggets Fan Since: 1978
Rockies Fan Since: 1993
 
Badges: 24
Zip Code: 80126
Posts: 13917
Joined: December 14th, 2009, 7:54 am

-4 points
(10 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby ATLborn79 on August 28th, 2011, 9:16 am #2083352
So we pissed away a billion dollars of borrowed Chinese money (not counting the black ops stuff we're not told about, which might be billions more) to intervene in another country's civil war. Instead of using that money in THIS country, we meddle around in other peoples' business--AGAIN...

...just so Western oil companies can get preferred contracts over those from China, Brazil, India, and Russia:

Libya Rebel Oil Official Says China, Russia Will Have Trouble Getting New Deals
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 ... 14270.html

Rebels might redraw Libya’s oil contracts http://rt.com/news/oil-contracts-libya-russia-645/
I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

DO YOU HEAR ME NOW???????
User avatar
ATLborn79
Andy T
Andy's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 20
Zip Code: The Highlands (NOT Highlands Ranch)
Posts: 5778
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 2:36 pm

0
(16 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby indubitablysnarky on August 28th, 2011, 9:45 am #2083392
We spent many years fighting in Afghanistan while barely remembering that our troops were even there.


That scenario has been a recent one, but why is that Mike?

Could it be because when Bush was running the show the media reminded us by constantly showcasing the war protesters, running daily body counts and stories about American soldiers committing war crimes?

Once Obama got in office and continued the Bush Afghan strategy, suddenly the media's interest somehow instantly changed and negative coverage was almost non existent, not to mention the war protests.


In any case, the Libyan war has worked, so far, just the way he hoped it would...


Obama declared the Libya war would last "days, not weeks". It's been going on for almost six months now. Have you been living in some sort of time warp?


This coalition actually was a coalition.


Sorry Mike, try as you might but the facts say otherwise.

1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... 0final.pdf

Mike, I know its your job to defend Obama at all costs, but making stuff up to do so is really lame and insulting to your readers.

We're not all as gullible as you would like to think.
User avatar
indubitablysnarky
RMN GetReal
RMN's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Rocky Reader
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 17
Zip Code: 80232
Posts: 1615
Joined: February 26th, 2009, 9:14 pm

1 points
(17 votes)

Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby mike_littwin on August 28th, 2011, 10:41 am #2083456
Snarkster,

You must be gullible, if you cite those previous "coalition" numbers as based in some kind of reality. In Libya, France has actually flown the most sorties.

Your quote of Obama -- which is one of those sources said quotes anyway -- is taken out of context. According to the sources, he said U.S. forces would take the lead for days, not weeks -- not that the war would be over.

The time I'm referring to when the Afghan war was basically forgotten began almost as soon as we went into Iraq.

As for defending Obama, I've been a critic of the Libyan decision since we went in there. I still think it was a bad idea. I end my column saying I hope he doesn't think it means anything more than things have worked out, so far, in Libya. I just think it's funny to see the pro-Iraq war people can't give Obama credit for what has, so far, worked pretty much the way anyone could have hoped.

Mike Littwin
User avatar
mike_littwin
mike l
mike's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Denver Post Staff
 
Badges: 10
Zip Code: 80202
Posts: 234
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 1:00 pm

1 points
(15 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby DenverDixie on August 28th, 2011, 10:55 am #2083470
Wars are just plain stupid demonstrations of power and ego. Vietnam wounded a generation, not just those who fought overseas, but those who fought it at home. Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, based on lies and the conceit of the people in power. Would it have gone the way of other Arab countries this spring if we would have just let it alone? Afghanistan has no clear purpose now that Al-qaeda's head has been bitten off. Smart bombs have done more damage than invasion. Libya is still a question mark.

Obama is growing on me. He's not flashy or chest pounding, but he has done a few things that have impressed me. Like getting Osama bin laden, appointing people who can do their jobs like FEMA head Napolitano, attempting to restart the economy by building and repairing infrastructure. The only thing I see republicans doing is trying to unseat democrats. Worthless.
DenverDixie
Helen K
Helen's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 14
Zip Code: 80014
Posts: 422
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 12:46 pm

-1 points
(9 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby MJCZ on August 28th, 2011, 11:14 am #2083489
mike_littwin wrote:I just think it's funny to see the pro-Iraq war people can't give Obama credit for what has, so far, worked pretty much the way anyone could have hoped.

Mike Littwin


I think the reluctance comes (at least from me as I was a supporter of our original missions in Afghanistan and Iraq) to a large degree because Libya and Gadhafi posed no imminent danger or strategic threat to the USA, to US interests abroad, or to any of our NATO allies. This truly was a war of choice and for what appears, to a great degree, to be about oil destined for western Europe. Humanitarian reasons? 1000s have been slaughtered in Syria in the past 2 months and we do nothing. Same with Sudan. How about 100s of Coptic Christians being murdered and persecuted in Egypt - by those WE supported and that deposed Mubarak? They raped Lara Logan of CBS in broad daylight in Tarir Square and we hardly heard a word about it.

In hindsight it appears that most of the concerns about WMDs in Iraq were overblown, to say the least. But there never should have been any doubt at all had Saddam complied with the terms of the Gulf War Ceasefire Agreement. He never did. The Gulf War never really ended. He was given more chances than any tyrant and mass murdering SOB deserves over 12 years while he fired missiles on UK/US pilots patrolling the no-fly zones, 5000 Iraqis died each month under UN sanctions, and Oil-For-Food BILLIONS flowed to Saddam and Sons - that he used to finance Islamic terrorism and pay bounties to Pali suicide bomber's families. We were attacked from Afghanistan so that invasion was 100% justified. We can argue the mission and the subsequent tactics all day long.

Just 5 years ago Condi Rice was making nice with Gadhafi - and it appears he had quite the crush on her too!! After he fessed up and surrendered much/some of his WMDs (after he saw what happened after we took out Saddam) we threw him a bone and tried to get him back into the community of nations and started trade talks. Now, with no threat to the USA and with minimal knowledge about who wants to take control of this oil rich country and with a huge tidal wave of Muslim/Jihadist militancy and uprisings across the Middle East and N Africa we decide to change sides (as Obama did before with Mubarak - but not with the Green Movement in Iran in 2009 and not with Assad in Syria) and support this insurgent group.

There is no consistency in our foreign policy in this part of world, it would appear. Why do we support some Muslim tyrants but not others? This goes back long before Obama, just to be clear, and it has probably caused as many problems as it has solved, maybe more. I think three things play a major role - oil, WMDs, and are they on "our side". The "our side" thing goes back to the Cold War and old habits die hard.

I am glad that things appear to be heading for a "good" resolution, but this is far from over and no one better be hiring the caterer or booking the band for the celebration party just yet. As with all our missions in this part of the world the jury is out and will be for many months or even years. If al Qaeda, Iran, Hezzbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood are inside this "freedom" movement in Libya and they set up a terror state (as once existed there under Gadhafi) with all that oil money, we might just have to send the whole Sixth Fleet over and a Marine Expeditionary Force into Libya to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope not. I really hope not.
Last edited by MJCZ on August 28th, 2011, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
"The Draconian (Draco c. 621 BC) laws, traditional Athenian law code, were noteworthy because they were written in blood and death was prescribed for almost all criminal offenses."
User avatar
MJCZ
Mike C
Mike's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Rocky Reader
Banned User
Broncos Fan Since: 1976
Rockies Fan Since: 1993
 
Badges: 17
Posts: 1880
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 4:39 am

8 points
(10 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby 3Fs on August 28th, 2011, 11:26 am #2083497
1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... 0final.pdf


Devil's in the details, Snarky. Although I can't comment about the other conflicts, the "coalition of the willing" in the Iraq war was one of the biggest jokes to come out of the Iraq-invasion PR machine (which is really saying something). That invasion was four countries: U.S., U.K., Australia and Poland. The "coalition of the willing" became a list that was ever-changing and eventually came to represent countries that merely ostensibly approved of the action (there are also reports that the White House used the carrot-on-a-stick method of foreign aid to get countries to agree to be on the list). Take a look at these numbers:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ir ... index.html

To say that 40 countries invaded Iraq is simply not accurate. Example: what, exactly, was Tonga's contribution?
User avatar
3Fs
Jeff F
Jeff's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 16
Posts: 1935
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 2:40 pm

-5 points
(9 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby ATLborn79 on August 28th, 2011, 11:58 am #2083523
mike_littwin wrote:I just think it's funny to see the pro-Iraq war people can't give Obama credit for what has, so far, worked pretty much the way anyone could have hoped.


Of course, we also have Statesmen who are principled and committed to peace and non-interventionism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQus52COlSI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4
I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

DO YOU HEAR ME NOW???????
User avatar
ATLborn79
Andy T
Andy's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
 
Badges: 20
Zip Code: The Highlands (NOT Highlands Ranch)
Posts: 5778
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 2:36 pm

-4 points
(12 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby paperboy60657 on August 28th, 2011, 1:31 pm #2083628
DenverDixie wrote:Wars are just plain stupid demonstrations of power and ego. Vietnam wounded a generation, not just those who fought overseas, but those who fought it at home. Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, based on lies and the conceit of the people in power. Would it have gone the way of other Arab countries this spring if we would have just let it alone? Afghanistan has no clear purpose now that Al-qaeda's head has been bitten off. Smart bombs have done more damage than invasion. Libya is still a question mark.

Obama is growing on me. He's not flashy or chest pounding, but he has done a few things that have impressed me. Like getting Osama bin laden, appointing people who can do their jobs like FEMA head Napolitano, attempting to restart the economy by building and repairing infrastructure. The only thing I see republicans doing is trying to unseat democrats. Worthless.


I can appreciate the comfort of believing our president is doing a good job, Dixie, and surely the issues you cite reflect positively on Obama, but I believe he has failed to meet his Article II duty to "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed," and undermined our democratic process by his failure to use his office to promote an agenda composed of policies he well knows are in the best interest of the people of the United States. These two failures are closely related and, in my opinion, unforgivable. Only if the Republicans nominate a looney toon like Bachman or a knuckle dragging carny like Perry will I even consider voting a second time for Obama. If Huntsman is the nominee, I will vote for him, and should not be at all surprised if he becomes the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

Dick Wormtongue Cheney will be in the news for several weeks upcoming to promote his new book. This will revive the torture "argument," an argument we have never truly engaged because of the political cowardice of Obama. Most ingominiously, president Obama actually invoked the Nuremburg defense to immunize the lower level operatives who actually carried out the crimes. Because Obama chose not to pursue charges against the war criminals in the Bush administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, proponents of the efficacy and legality of torture are left essentially unopposed. Those opposed to torture and in favor of the rule of law are denied the support of the "justice" system and left to argue their position in the abstract, with no de facto legal support whatsoever. The damage to the moral fabric our country and to the rule of law is immeasruable. Our children and our children's children will pay a horrific price for this unconscionable act of political cowardice.

On issue after critical issue Obama has capitulated to Republican pressure without ever proposing and arguing in favor of essential progressive policies, leaving the "debate" entirely in the hands of the Republicans. Because Obama gave away single-payer Medicare for all before even seriously asking for it, the majority of Americans remain utterly ignorant of the enormous economic and social benefits such a plan would beget. As such, we are stuck with a half-measure health "reform" law that reinforces the already crippling power of insurance companies to dictate who is covered and how much it will cost. The American people were entitled to have the debate, but we were denied this right by Obama.

Obama capitulated on reauthorizing the Bush tax cuts with barely a whimper. The result was a lost opportunity to once and for all debunk the idiotic, ahistorical "voodoo economics" of trickle down theory. Evidence of the past thirty years incontrovertably proves that lower taxes on the rich creates no jobs, but only widens the gap between the haves and the have nots. The American people were entitled to have the debate, but we were denied this right by Obama.

Most recently the president's penchant for handing over the cash before the robber comes in the store and pulls the gun was demonstrated in the "debt crisis" debacle. Again the president allowed Republicans to take control of the debate by defining the issue as one of reducing spending when the immediate crisis was the vicious cycle of unemployment, lack of consumer demand, anemic growth, all three feeding off each other and contributing to the debt problem by reducing revenues to historic lows. From the beginning Obama should have said "jobs and economic growth" every time a Republican said out of control spending and no new taxes. But he didn't. Instead he gave Republicans complete control of the debate, diverting attention from the real problems by responding to a contrived crisis, losing precious time in formulating an effective job growth agenda, and leaving the majority of the country believing a long term deficit reduction plan has something to do with getting us out of this recession.

In short, Obama's failure to take a leadership position on a single major issue and then stand by it on principle or efficacy of policy has denied the American people their rightful voice in the democratic process our republic requires. Others may consider this excusable. I do not.
Last edited by paperboy60657 on August 28th, 2011, 4:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit, I'm not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be."

—Barack Obama, at the White House Correspondents Dinner
User avatar
paperboy60657
Louis Wu
Louis's recent comments
Mark this user as a friend
Ignore posts from this user
Rocky Reader
Certified Commenter
 
Badges: 15
Zip Code: 60657
Posts: 1457
Joined: December 26th, 2010, 4:31 pm

-3 points
(9 votes)

Re: Article Discussion: Littwin: America's lesson from Libya

Postby indubitablysnarky on August 28th, 2011, 2:15 pm #2083657
mike_littwin wrote:Snarkster,

You must be gullible, if you cite those previous "coalition" numbers as based in some kind of reality. In Libya, France has actually flown the most sorties...


Ok Mike,

Add France to the coalition list.

So now, including the US, Obama has only 16- still waaay below the coalition totals of past wars in the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

So explain to me again how your claim, "This coalition actually was a coalition" is valid, when compared to Libya, Bush had three times the coalition numbers in Afghanistan and two and a half times that in Iraq?

So now the goal posts are moved closer for Obama and less coalitions make a coalition an "actual coalition"?

The Obama-Biden Plan

The Obama-Biden Plan

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

  • 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. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.
  • Pakistan: Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.

Nuclear Weapons

  • A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
    • He joined Senator Dick Lugar (R-In) in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
    • He joined Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
  • Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While working to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
  • Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
  • Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Iran

  • Diplomacy: Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Energy Security

  • Achieving Energy Security: Obama will put America on a path to energy independence by investing $150 billion in renewable and alternative energy over the next ten years -- an investment that will create millions of jobs along the way. He’ll also make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.

Renewing American Diplomacy

  • Renew our Alliances: Obama and Biden will rebuild our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century. America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation that strengthens old partnerships and builds new ones to confront the common challenges of the 21st century -- terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.
  • Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations, friend and foe. They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table and is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like confronting terrorism and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
  • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push -- working with Israelis and Palestinians -- to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
  • Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama and Biden will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in difficult corners of the world -- particularly in Africa. They will expand our foreign service, and develop our civilian capacity to work alongside the military.
  • Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty and hunger around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to achieve that goal. This will help the world's weakest states build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.
  • Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama and Biden will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. They will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.

Israel

  • Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.
  • Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
  • Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

Bipartisanship and Openness

  • A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.
  • Consultative Group: Obama and Biden will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.
  • Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama will insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community -- not just a political ally.
  • Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
  • Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring their national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. Obama will personally deliver Your Weekly Address via webcast.