Barack Obama’s position on Iraq has shifted significantly over the last six years. What is interesting is how his position on Iraq matches up with developments in Chicago. Specifically, there appears to be a direct correlation between the rising and falling prospects of his longtime friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko’s attempts to secure multi-million-dollar contracts to build and operate a power plant in Kurdish Iraq and the senator’s Iraq flip-flops.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
But on April 5, 2004, Barack Obama appeared to significantly alter his position on Iraq. Obama unexpectedly sounded almost like President Bush on the subject of retaining troops in Iraq.
Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.
Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.
Obama’s change of tone in 2004 was so noticeable that Howard Kurtz couldn’t help but notice how striking the Illinois senator’s position was in mid-2004. Obama was quoted as saying:
There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.
Something else took place in April 2004. Obama was at a party on April 3 — two days before the video– with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire who attended a Tony Rezko party in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune blog covered Obama’s recollection of the party in depth.
Late last week, Sen. Barack Obama said he didn’t recall meeting a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire at a party held at the home of his former friend and fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, on April 3, 2004, because it was in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.
But a check on the senator’s calendar showed he had no campaign activities on the day of the Auchi party. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that despite Obama’s inability to recall meeting Mr. Auchi, two sources said the senator was present.
According to two sources familiar with the gathering, the Obamas attended the Wilmette reception, which came less than a month after Obama’s Democratic primary win for his U.S. Senate seat.http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/r...ezko15.article
The meeting with Auchi takes on a special suggestiveness in light of later revelations that Rezko planned to build a $150 million Chamchamal Power Plant in Kurdish Iraq despite the fact he had no resources to do it with. According to John Batchelor, the former Obama supporter’s straitened circumstances at the time he was bidding for the project came up during the discovery proceedings at his recent trial:
[In] January 16, 2007, ex parte proceedings before Federal District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, in the case of the United States v. Antoin Rezko, in the discovery of Mr. Rezko’s resources in order to set his bail awaiting trial. … The judge asked about Mr. Rezko’s creation, Rezmar International LLC.
Mr. Rezko answered, “Rezmar International entered into contract with the Ministry of Electricity in — of — Iraq, to build a power plant and sell power to the government. And we were negotiating for over, now, I guess, two years.” Mr. Rezko added that the deal, for the never-built, $150 million Chamchamal power plant in Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
From April 2004 onward, Barack Obama’s position on Iraq remained remarkably constant. The Illinois senator believed it was important not to abandon Iraq until it was stable enough to fend for itself. In November 2005, he said:
I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.
At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism.
We must find the right balance — offering enough security to serve as a buffer and carry out a targeted, effective counter-insurgency strategy, but not so much of a presence that we serve as an aggravation. It is this balance that will be critical to finding our way forward.
Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity — pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad-based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency.
In June 2006, despite the counterinsurgency troubles being encountered at that time, Obama reiterated his desire to keep American troops in Iraq until it stabilized. The senator said following a visit:
But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
But on Nov 20, 2006, Obama suddenly changed his mind on Iraq. He believed it had become unwinnable. There was no point in going on and a withdrawal had to begin within a few months. CNN reported:
Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.
“The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy,” said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008.
“It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America’s efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won.”
Obama’s speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs came as the debate over Iraq policy has heated up in Washington, with policy makers making proposals that range from a phased withdrawal that begins in four to six months to an increase in troop strength.
What had changed between June and November 2006 to alter Obama’s position? Possibly the situation on the ground. But one circumstance that had also changed was that the Rezko Chamchamal contract had been finally and irrevocably canceled only two weeks before.
"We had, for whatever it’s worth, sometime in June received a letter saying the contract was canceled. We protested the cancellation. And, then, we received this [the November cancellation] letter."
