Barrack has been in the unusual position of flip-flopping on war since 2002 and yet some people continue to ignore his flip-flops and ignorance and inexperience. In 2002, he contemplated whether to support the war or go against it. His view on Iraq War since has shifted slowly from being for the war to being against the war as public opinion changes. He was for the immediate pull out of troops and now that we are making progress, he is slowly evolving his political stand on troops pull out. Where are the Democrats who voted for the war? Can we hold them accountable for their votes on the war? No, because some people who supports the Democrats or Obama would continue to ignore the fact that majority of Democrats also supported and permitted the war. Obama should not only be on the defense for his inexperience but for his weakness. Have we forgotten 9-11 was the result of Bill Clinton's contemplation on war on terrorism? We could have killed Bin Laden when he was the president but he ignored a phone call from one of his military commander to request shooting Bin Laden when we our soldiers were within eyesight of killing him. I guess playing golf was more important than hunting Bin Laden. We do not need another Bill Clinton in the office, and Obama is slowly showing the same character. Barrack is full of campaign promises but lacks the substance, actions and especially the firmness to stand by his political views. The toughest decision for a Commander-In-Chief is to send troops to war. It is especially tough when troops are getting killed and injured. Today, I had the opportunity to meet two soldiers who lost their arms and legs. It was tough to shake their hands but I gave them the honor that they deserve. As a chief in the Navy, I always give orders that my sailors would not agree. But right or wrong, I am accountable for my actions. I hope Obama and the Democrats would do the same. The decision to send troops was not made the president alone but with the approval of the Congress.

MORE ON GETTING TO KNOW OBAMA: Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the BLACK Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These BLACK Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever BLACKS are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the BLACK Community
3. Commitment to the BLACK Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the BLACK Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the BLACK Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting BLACK Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all BLACK leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the BLACK Value System.

Please read the "BLACK Value System" again -- only this time, substitute the word "White" for "BLACK."

If your church had such a "White Value System" Jesse and Al and the NAACP would have 10,000 demonstrators out front in a heartbeat.

===============================================

HOW WELL DO VOTERS KNOW OBAMA...DO YOU KNOW? *** "CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?

Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship.

At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16 5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia.

Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.

Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days."

Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

"Reaching out to the enemy," has the quaint triteness that it sounds reasonable and rational, but what will the enemy have in his hand as we reach to shake it?

Why Zakaria inserted the word "China" in his rambling speech ? Just to show he is aware of the outside world?
Since that has been done, one should learn a lesson or two from Chinese history. When the Manchu of the Qing dynasty entered the capital (now known as Beijing)they decreed that officials of the defeated government would hold their original posts, and the residents continue in their usual calling. Thus the city remained calm in spite of management change. That happened in 1644. This lesson is too late for Bagdad. But Obama or McCain can get a private history tutor after the election.

Dear Fareed:

Senator Obama already gave a speech about Iraq. The issue is whether he is going to keep his words: Meeting any leaders in the world--without any preconditions. The debate in the fall should be how to manage the war after Bush.

Anyone who can explain why US should stay or leave in a logical manner will win. Why? The electoral map is tied: All depends on independents and swing voters who oppose the war yet who also do not agree with Senator Obama's trade policy that does not make sense.

The currents have changed. So, go with the flow, Mr. Zakaria. Never mind that you were one of the lead cheer leaders drumming up support for the war in the so-called “responsible” part of the media. I have already discounted Fox News and other “irresponsible” parts.

You would have slightly more credibility if you were to own up to your past sins. But hey, would a pundit still be a pundit if he were to eat a humble pie?

"We know that, he talks to us like we are illiterate. "

Well, it's still a step forward from the current situation, where an illiterate President talks to us like we're illiterate and stupid to boot.

No, what Barack Obama should say is, "We're pulling out just as soon as we possibly can, while maintaining maximum force protection. First, we retrograde to defensible bases, preferably with airfields. That, or we exfiltrate our troops out via the souther expressway and Kuwait. Then the IRAQI PEOPLE, can deal with your own mess. Americans are tired of playing bloody nurse-maid to blood thirsty, religious savages wholly consumed by the medieval compulsion to kill each other over the brand of another's religion. Once the succesful exfiltration of Iraq is complete, wheel on Saudi Arabia and conquer the oil fields, along with Kuwait's. Let the residents die of starvation because the world would be far better off without them. And take the Israelis with them.

The Third World War is coming and I say, Let's Get a Jump on the Chinese and Russians.

Of course, I'm a Democrat, though clearly not the Liberal version, so what do I know?

CJ Knew:

What?, are you crazy¿

We can criticize Bush/McCain for many things, but changing course is not one of them?

Do we need to remind you of the period of recorded history known as 2003 - 2006?

Changing course wasn't an option then for the Bush administration. And the only reason they decided to LISTEN and change (a wee bit) was because they saw the handwriting on the wall.

Give it up. You're logic is ill-logical.

Actually, the speech should be much shorter. It should go:

On 9/11, we embarked on a war that has now lasted longer than WWII. In that time, we have had one great success - in freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban - and then made a series of misjudgments and wrong moves that have eroded our standing all around the world, and ironically, buffered the very people who attacked us on 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al qaeda, who have operated with impunity for the last four years across the border from Afghanistan, training Taliban troops to incurse in Afgahnistan territory, killing American soldiers.

But, taking our eyes off the prize, we proceeded to invade and occupy Iraq. The reasons we went into Iraq don't have to be surveyed here. They were skewed and, at best, insufficient. Our occupation has achieved all it is going to achieve in the way of securing the government of Iraq. That government is a surprising thing - it is headed by the Da'wa party. In the 1980s, the Da'wa party allied with Hezbollah in attacking American embassies throughout the Middle East, including the big bombing of the embassy and Marine Corps in Beirut. Today, we fight alongside of these people, protecting them.

The lesson there is clear - we must adapt to achanging landscape. If we can ally ourselves with the Da'wa party, then we can surely talk to Iran. My plan for withdrawing from Iraq is simple: it is to direct our efforts, from November 8th onward, to getting out of Iraq and making the Persian Gulf a more peaceful place. To do this will require negotiating with the Iranian government so that it can assume its rightful place in the Middle Eastern system.

The advantage of this is twofold. Security fears have run up the price of oil at an astonishing clip. In one blow, we will take out the security fear, thus bringing the price of oil back to a rational level. Secondly, we will mitigate any hostilities that could catch hold in Iraq as we leave by creating a structure for negotiating conflict.

We have things we want the Iranians to do. Just as the Chinese, while disagreeing with the status of Taiwan, have agreed not to attack Taiwan, we want the Iranians to agree to non-agression against the state of Israel. As Isreal and Palestine evolve towards a two state solution, this agreement will be reinforced by the facts on the ground.

Goodnight.

Obama needs a policy statement that could be published. The speech can summarize the important points and that can be done. Eliminate the drama of this particular speech, and let the policy statement take on a life of its own in the talk shows. They would love it because not that many people will have a chance to read the statement. The press and media would do the work.

We should set a date and stick to a date. What I don't see in many of these post is the idea that the members of the Iraqi parliment want us to leave their country. It is their country so they should make the decisions. They have stated that they may need assistance from our military with training, maybe peacekeeping. But if they do not want us there, playing the role that we are currently playing. Then we should leave. Period. America should not be crusading for democracy. We should support it, nurture it, encourage it, but this is obviously Bush's crusade to shove our way of life down this countries throat. That is very arrogant,and historically has not worked out well in our favor. If they are willing to take responsibility for their own country. We should not stop them.

Characterizing the Bush/McCain approach as "keep doing what we're doing" is obviously false. The improvement in conditions on the ground in Iraq between 2006 and the present occurred precisely because we CHANGED course there. It is fair to criticize Bush/McCain for many things regarding the war in Iraq, but an unwillingness to change course is not one of them.

It's a good idea, but as a speech it is too long.

Shorten it a bit, make it more focused, and then your 'speech' for Mr. Obama may get the country's attention.

You've got about 45 seconds to make your case, then about four minutes to help me understand why I should listen to you or read your stuff.

You lost me at 3 minutes, and I'm pretty bright. Take that speech to Ohio, and you'll have them falling asleep in no time.

I hadn't seen or heard of Mr. Zakaria before. His advice to Obama and the many comments have made me feel like an old friend.

Mr. Zakaria,

Before directing what Obama should or should not say in terms of Iraq policy, didn't drum up to the war?

Why is there any follow-up since then?

I know you guys are arm-chair arm-twisters who will chase candidates and paint them to a corner for taking a position if it is not your professed "intelligent" opinion.

You will drum-up and silently change your view calling yourself a pundit. While at the same time, if a candidate says, it is dubbed as not being consistent.

Dr. Zakaria comes across as a "House Muslim" to the neocons, even though he's with Newsweek, hardly a Bush 43 cheering section. Another one would be Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, "House Muslim" to Bush 41.

My advice, Mr. Zakaria, is shut up and listen to the man. I don't think he needs your advice.

Dave:
I wish people would stop saying Israel was "created" in 1948. If anything, it was 'created' in 1917, with the Balfour Declaration, by the Brits. And the planning and groundwork started 40 years before that, by Herzl, Ben Gurion, Weitzman and other zionists. America was not "created" in 1776 either, it just underwent a management change and a name change, starting then. Normally, it would be an academic distinction. But in this case, the "Hitler made us do it" rationale for Israel's "creation" falls apart, since effects can't happen before their causes.

I know this post is not exactly on-topic, but reading so many posts here makes clear the level of ignorance involving the zionist occupation of Palestine, aka Israel.

Posted June 23, 2008 3:44 PM

The Balfour Declaration represents the paper creation of Israel. 1949 represents the balls out creation of the State of Israel. To give no credit for the 1949 creation of the state of Israel is a shame for any defender of the Israeli state.

Catch-22 is right - that part I agree with. The catch-22 however, isn't about security - as so many of us know its about oil. The catch-22 is that as long as we need the oil we need to spend billions of dollars and lives to be able to mine that resource. The money we use to get oil out of Iraq can't be used to created alternate energy resources to divest ourselves of foreign intervention and dependency on a resources from an unstable part of the world.
Bush's policies made us very vulnerable. How so? Iran or anyone who hates Israel, our one true ally in the middle east, can easily make our lives miserable by killing our soldiers and we really can't go after that them full force without risking financial suicide. Also one of our major trading partners, China, has joined us in becoming massive users of imported oil. And there isn't going to be enough for both of us for much longer. A inept man got us into this mess now we need a genius to get us out of it. And genius is rare.

Independant, did you just assert that "Peace is morally unjustified"? Or only that "Enforcing peace is morally unjustified"? Or are you saying that "Breaching the peace is fine as long as you leave me alone"?

And did you also speak of Pax Americana in the hypothetical future tense? Do you then assert that we are NOT currently living in a state of Pax Americana?

Opinions are like ... oops, this is a family site.

At any rate. Iraq did not have WMD and is not threat to the U-S of A nor its neighbors.

Most Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Most of the world wants us out of Iraq. Most Americans want us out of Iraq.

Why the disconnect? Let's get the * out of Iraq.

I wish people would stop saying Israel was "created" in 1948. If anything, it was 'created' in 1917, with the Balfour Declaration, by the Brits. And the planning and groundwork started 40 years before that, by Herzl, Ben Gurion, Weitzman and other zionists. America was not "created" in 1776 either, it just underwent a management change and a name change, starting then. Normally, it would be an academic distinction. But in this case, the "Hitler made us do it" rationale for Israel's "creation" falls apart, since effects can't happen before their causes.

I know this post is not exactly on-topic, but reading so many posts here makes clear the level of ignorance involving the zionist occupation of Palestine, aka Israel.

Barack Obama has showed sound judgment in initially opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as promising timely withdrawal of most military forces from there. He has made the claim he is a different candidate, from the politics of old, one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Barack's opposition to the costly war and occupation in Iraq is one of the key reasons why a slim majority of voters chose him over Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Barack, if elected president, will need to show people in this country and the world he is a person true to his word, by beginning withdrawals, as he has promised. The tens of billions each year wasted in Iraq needs to be spent in this country, expanding health care coverage, improving the public schools, enhancing our security by increasing police forces, etc.

President Obama, if he changes his often stated position on the issue of withdrawals from Iraq, would demonstrate his candidacy, based on being the agent of change and a new politics, was a charade. Cynicism among most people about politicians would considerably increase.

Fareed Zakaria says Barack should say: "The president of the United States is responsible not just for Iraq, not just for the Middle East and West Asia, but for America's interests across the globe." I could not disagree more strongly. The countries and people in those regions are ultimately responsible for their well-being and security more than the president of the United States. A Pax Romana revived, as some advocate, as a Pax Americana on the entire world is highly arrogant, morally unjustified, would alienate most of the rest of the people in the world and would be very costly, This is the mentality that led to disastrous intervention in Vietnam and Iraq.

Who will decide about US actions in Iraq? - Will it be the new President? - I doubt it.

The "permanent bases" are not built to have the US troops abandon them in the next two years. They are designed for the next decades: to allow better control of the MidEast.

Iraq was conquered to get privileged access to the MidEast OIL. It's the oil, stupid. The USA will not give up these vast oil ressources to those whom Iraqis would chose if they could chose.

I don't know what is the real distribution of power in the USA - what role exactly play the elites, Big Money, Corporations, and how they manipulate politics.

But it is obvious that it is not the people, not the voters who will decide about whether the USA will leave Iraq or not. The voters' opinion is clear, and clear for several years now:
Finish this misadventure!
Two thirds of the voters want the US troops out in at least two years.

Obama will ignore that.
US politics will ignore that.
And they CAN ignore that!

How is it possible for politics to ignore such a persistently outspoken will of the voters and just continue to follow the opposite course, the course two thirds of the voters reject?

Somehow, the USA is no longer a democracy.

Or do you have a better explanation for this weird difference in voter opinion and government politics?

Zakaria,

Do you have time to read the Washington Post or the Newsweek. The al-Qaeda and Taliban are not in Afghanistan any more (since a little after 9/11).

They are now based in Pakistan. Obama has already said he will attack Pakis, if need be.

Is that ok with you?

Hey Anonymous, it's not really the worst mess in history. Seriously. And it's really not as big of a mess as George Bush's domestic political enemies have painted it. And the fact that it's messy is not necessarily a point against it.

It is very messy, no doubt about it. Nobody with any brains ever said it wasn't or that it wouldn't be. Nation-building and counter-insurgency are messy. Chocolate cake is chocolatey. Oil is oily. Nation-building and counter-insurgency are messy.

So here's the problem - it's a race against time. Messiness erodes political support over time. So the insurgent's strategy is to keep it as messy as possible for as long as possible until one of two things happens - either (A) all the insurgents are killed, or (B) the messiness erodes political support for the war back home enough for us to quit. A good example of "A" is the Malaysian Communist guerillas - eventually 90% of them were hunted down and killed. A good example of "B" in the Soviet venture in Afghanistan.

This one is turning out quite well. And in record time too, only 5 years. Most of the foreign terrorists and former regime elements have been hunted down and killed. It was just a matter of developing a winning strategy (which we have) and sticking with it (which McCain promises to do and Obama promises not to do).

We'll see how it turns out.

For Marsha:

I see you're speechless, repeating the same message over and over. "Struck dumb" might be more appropriate.

I believe Dr. Zakaria's a fine man but has been going beyond his capabilities.

Our prayers for you are in progress.

The fact is, Obama fired Samantha Power for leaking his plan to hoodwink voters on his Iraq position during this election. Obama has alway been with bush on Iraq when voting. Are the liberals so desperate to take the poison of Obama to "get out of Iraq"? LOL

John traveler ought to know that our current prices have nothing to do with how much oil we can produce inside the USA, because the oil produced in the USA doesn't just go into the US oil market, it goes to the world market. I would support drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge if 100% of that oil would be sold exclusivly inside the US market at a reasonable profit. We all know that oil producers would love to get that oil and sell it wherever they could get the most money, so it would not lower our prices an iota.
Why don't oil companies pump oil from the gazillions of acres they already have under lease? Could it be they like to keep prices up rather than lower tham and make less money? Why give them more oil leases when they refuse to produce on what they have?
As for McCain being a "man of action", the actions I notice him taking is his constant kissing up to the discredited President Bush, and his consistant flip flopping on every single issue where he's taken a stand.
Better luck next time! You ought to think for yourself rather then recycling dittohead talking points.

"The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies.

Wait. We become extremely unhappy when Pakistanis want to talk to the militants to contain violence in that region. Infact, so unhappy that we bomb both militants and pakistani at the same time. If only we know the best strategies, how come we are in the worst mess in our history?

First and foremost, the President of the United States is responsible to Americans, here in America and Americans everywhere in the world. The USA president, nor the the United States should be responsible for other countries - ever. Bush has negleted the U.S. citizens for 8 years, it's time to fix things in this country first. The middle east has been at war with each middle east country at one time or another since life on this planet as we know it began. That is what we are voting for. Not to spend our tax money in any other country. Goodby and Good Luck to the Middle East.

Your statement: " The president of the United States is responsible not just for Iraq, not just for the Middle East and West Asia, but for America's interests across the globe. We must make our commitment in Iraq one that is limited, temporary and thus sustainable

"The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.

Wait. When Pakistan talks to the militants, we want to drop bombs on them; both militants and Paksitanis. What's going on there? If we have the best strategies for everything, how did we end up creating, probably, the worst mess in our history?

"The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.

In Iraq, we don't have any problem talking to the militants. When Pakistan talks to the militants, we want to bomb them; both militants and Pakistanis. What's going on here?

We do not owe the Iraqi people? That is nothing short of sheer American arrogance! We stomped on their land....yes, Sadaam was a madman..but no one invited us to come over there, but us. We Americans have not learned our lesson in the "you break it, it is yours". We owe the Iraqi people a lot for an unjustified, criminal war.

Fareed, don't forget that you were one of those in the forefront justifying the Iraq invasion, and now you turnaround and write this. It is this sort of unscrupulous and opportunistic "foreign policy expertise" in the media from those such as yours that contributed to the dire situation facing this country and Iraq. If I do this in profession, I will lose my license, and you, in your job could write anything as an "expert" and get away with it. What is pathetic situation that we are in.

Forrest:

We do owe the American people, but you are wrong...We owe the Iraqi people. We were the warmongers who decided to trample on their land. Yes, Sadaam was a madman...but who asked us to come and "solve" their problem for them? We were not greeted as the "hero" like the Bush admin said we would be. Yes, things in Iraq may look a little better...but how dare we think that the "we think we are almighty" U.S. did them a favor. That is the the same type of arrogance that always gets us in trouble. We ought to be ashamed for even supporting this war in the beginning.

Zakaria's piece appears to be an application for a position as one of Obama's speechwriters.

I'd grade it as incomplete until he apologizes for his early support of the invasion and occupation, and treats his recent change of heart.

Fortunately, Obama writes a pretty fine speech himself.

Nice article, Fareed, except that you assume Obama knows what you are talking about.

Forrest:

We do owe the American people, but you are wrong...We owe the Iraqi people. We were the warmongers who decided to trample on their land. Yes, Sadaam was a madman...but who asked us to come and "solve" their problem for them? We were not greeted as the "hero" like the Bush admin said we would be. Yes, things in Iraq may look a little better...but how dare we think that the "we think we are almighty" U.S. did them a favor. That is the the same type of arrogance that always gets us in trouble. We ought to be ashamed for even supporting this war in the beginning.

Yes, Turningfool, Obama should become Bush/McCain lite.

Obama played you for a fool all these years. He knew that the antiwar rhetoric was overheated,, overblown, and just plain bad advice. But he supported it all along because it was in his best interest to do so.

Now, however, he faces the very real prospect of sitting in the Oval Office and making decisions that History will judge him for. He's not going to give anyone the satisfaction of destroying his legacy for the sake of of anyone's ideological purity.

After all, he's got to look out for himself.

Iraq has been a disaster ever since the British created it to advance their economic and colonial interests. If nothing is done it will continue to be a disaster. Now, being the altruistic America that we are, wouldn't it be good to fix the mess that is Iraq? The current insurgency is on the way out. The course of events is pretty close to what happened in Chechnya. The Russians have effectively crushed an Islamic insurgency there and we are doing so in Iraq. Mistakes have been made, however many have also been corrected. We should stay the course as the Russians did and only leave once Iraq is healthy, vibrant and secure. Period. McCain has a much better idea of how to achieve that so nothing that Obama can say will suggest otherwise.

The oil issue that many have brought up is a moot point. While there are many factors that play into the price of oil, one of the largest is inflation. The price of oil has risen at a rate almost identical to the rate at which the dollar has declined in value against other major currencies - which makes since because oil is traded in greenbacks. Rampant government spending of the type Obama wants to do it not going to help us in that regard.

So Obama should become Bush/McCain lite?

JANSEN,

You argue : " We completely broke Iraq. Not only broke it, we pulverized it - so it is ours".

Cut out the last phrase, and you could not be more right.

How to fix what you have pulverized? Pay war reparations and send the warmongers to the ICC! There is only one way -- ONLY ONE WAY.

The last thing Obama should do is to listen to Muslim apologists like you Fareed.

Not long ago, MoveOn called Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us".

Now, MoveOn has already launched a nasty attack on John McCain.

What Obama should say is:

"MoveOn's adds were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity, at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change".

"Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with MoveOn in the first place, they may ask? And I confess that if all that I knew of MoveOn were the snippets of those adds that have run in an endless loop on the television and the New York Times, or if MoveOn conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way."

"I can no more disown MoveOn than I can disown Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, or William Ayers".

"Moreover, I can no more disown MoveOn than I can disown Illinois farmers, who have pocketed billions in federal subsidies to divert crops from food to biofuels -which has been a major cause of the global food crisis we are now experiencing- thanks to the Bush/Cheney 2005 Energy Bill... which I voted for".

Mr. Zakaria, alongwith the likes of Mr. Tom Friedman of the NYTimes & Sen. McCain, were in the forefront of tha bandwagon that proclaimed how important it was to address the "Iraq situation" and how easy it would be to do so. They were _wrong_.

And, none of these stellar characters have ever accepted their role in the initial "sounding of drums". Now all these people talk of how Sec. Rumsfeld and his cohorts messed it up. While this is true, it masks the flaw in the original thinking (if it was ever original) of these folks.

Thus, even if what Mr. Zakaria says now makes sense, why on earth should anyone take him seriously? Why are all these people even holding jobs that permit them to influence the policy? In an honest, profit making enterprise these people would have been fired and not taken seriously anymore.

Take care. Regards.

The last western power to leave the middle east was France after they were pressured out of Algeria in the early 1960's. The last western people to enter the middle east were the Jews when they set about creating the State of Israel in the 1949. Israel in the middle east is somewhat connected to 9/11, not that they caused it to happen but that their presence in the middle east was a factor in how the United States shaped it foreign policies in the middle east.

If and when the US leaves Iraq,Iraq will be involved in a power struggle between the Sunnis, supported by the Saudis and the US, and the Shiites supported by the Iranians. Given Iraqi history, the Sunnis will once again come out on top. Another brutal Sunni regime will emerge to govern over the British created Iraqi state in the aftermath of the First World War. Iran will have nuclear capability and will become a significant threat to its neighbors in the middle east. The Saudis, with US assistance, will become a nuclear state to off-set the Iranian threat. Hamas will rule Gaza and the West Bank and will govern a Palestnian state comprising 67 % of the land east of the Green Line.

Bush went to war against Iraq because Sadam tried to kill his father, Bush I, aka Bush 41. The Iraq war has cost us around 1 trillion dollars. It will cost us another trillion and one half as we work our way out of the chaos we created.

Bush II and his administration, including top military leaders will be pursued for war crimes until the day they die, as is happening with war crime perpetrators in Argentina and Chile. The worl community will not allow war criminals to go unpunished. Each one will be hunted down and brought to justice. The torture tactics that came out of the Iraq experience will hover over every citizen of the world as they ponder who is next. Amrican are not out of this loop. We too must consider if the torture that was tried on America's enemies are not also tools to be applied to us if we become to restive with our government.

Good column. I enjoy reading your books & columns & agree with much of what you have written. A couple points though that I would question:

1 - You write that Petraeus & the surge have generated a "considerable decline in violence", as a result of "using more troops and fighting differently" & talking to our enemies. I have heard Senator Hagel & others on NPR state that we have also been giving monthly cash payments to many Sunnis to win them over. And also without Muqtada al-Sadr's ceasefire, there would have been much more violence.

2- You do not mention oil & permanent bases as being primary reasons for our adventure. The US is now in negotiations with the Iraqi government for an agreement to keep forces there with immunity for our armed forces & contractors from any Iraqi prosecution & for permanent bases. Also American companies are in negotiation for no-bid contracts to service the oil fields.

I do not honestly think McCain or Bush have any interest in exiting Iraq. Even if Iraq's democracy was totally stable, does anybody really believe we went there for WMD or to establish democracy?

Please don't blast Mr. Zakaria for this article. He was PAID by the Bush administration to spread the Iraqi invasion gospel like so many other 'journalists' that they forget that they initially wrote articles supporting and defending the indefensible.

U.S. CONSTITUTION - WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

DEMOCRAT $24 BARREL OF OIL

OIL WAS $24 A BARREL WHEN DEMOCRATS LEFT AND REPUBLICANS TOOK OFFICE AND NOW IT IS $145 A BARREL.

REPUBLICAN $145 BARREL OF OIL

YOU DO THE MATH AND DECIDE IF TEXAS OIL MILLIONAIRES WARRANT INVESTIGATIONS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

REPUBLICAN WALL STREET CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND STEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TREASURY.

REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

NO MORE REPUBLICAN LIES, CONSPIRACIES, AND GRAND LARCENIES.

REPUBLICAN $145 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $175 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $195 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $215 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $235 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $255 BARREL OF OIL SPECULATIONS

REPUBLICAN $4.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $5.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $5.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $6.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $6.50 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS
REPUBLICAN $7.00 A GALLON GASOLINE SPECULATIONS

WHEN DOES IT STOP IF EVER?

REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION DOES NOT WORK.
REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION IS HURTING AMERICA.
REPUBLICAN WALL STREET GREED SPECULATION IS HURTING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

STOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY
STOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY
STOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET OIL SPECULATIONS TODAY

REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS AMERICAN JOB OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

The laws of economics do not promote idealism or higher consciousness. The logic of profit and loss in a market-driven culture reduces the grandeur of the human species down to one role, that of “consumers.” And all along, the pleasure principle is saying, “I have products I can sell you to take care of all that.”

NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
NATIONALIZE U.S. OIL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

CLEAN NUCLEAR ELECTRIC ENERGY IS THE ANSWER

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

BARACK OBAMA WILL BRING BACK OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

REPUBLICAN WALL STREET MILLIONAIRES ARE PAYING THEMSELVES $10,000,000 BONUSES FROM MONEY STOLEN FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, WHILE SENDING OUR AMERCAN JOBS OVERSEAS. RECKLESS OUTSOURCING IS DESTROYING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

STOP REPUBLICAN MCCAIN FROM SELLING OUR AMERICA.

Back in 2003, Mr. Zakaria wrote a 2-part article in Newsweek, justifying the war in Iraq and also predicting it would not be particularly long nor difficult. http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032403.html

To my knowledge, Mr. Zakaria nor any other international expert that I can recall, has come clean by writing a follow-up article explaining what they got wrong and why they were wrong.

Although I find myself agreeing with many of his positions, I'm hoping when one of these guys gets it dead wrong, they would at least own up to it and explain their mistakes. Unfortunately, it never seems to happen.

In the case of this particular article, there was no new ground uncovered nor were there new ideas. Obama has been careful to talk about the need to be as careful getting out as in going in.

For those supporting McCain, I would like to hear justification rather than just plain "gut feeling". Why is it that McCain believes the threat of terrorism is so much worse than 8,000 nuclear warheads pointed in our direction. Or why is it that our only option is to stay the course -- why doesn't he outline what would happen if we left over the next 18 months? I'd be interested in McCain's assessment and willingness to cite specific evidence rather than throw out generalizations (like this is the most transcendent issue facing the US in a generation. What makes it the most? What are the consequences other than, "dire"?)

There is only one thing wrong with this otherwise excellent analysis -- and it's a BIG thing. It talks about what we "owe" the Iraqi people -- or at least how to improve their chances of a better life. What it DOES NOT talk about is what we owe the American people. And THAT should be the bottom line that matters most. With a sinking economy, a soaring deficit, and all manner of unmet domestic needs, we just can't afford nation building in Iraq or anyplace else. We have been more than generous. The American people deserve to have their tax dollars spent on THEIR pressing needs, not on optimizing an outcome in the Middle East. Zakaria points out all the things we might have done with the money "sunk" in Iraq. It's time to stop "sinking" more and doing those things. If, after 5 years of American charity, the Iraqis can't or don't want to run a halfway deecent country, so be it. It's time for US to run a halfway deecent country.Get out as soon as we can move the troops.

Stellar! Absolutely stellar!

Obama needs to give a speech on the larger issue of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East - but he won't, because the U.S. press would likely attack him for doing so.

That's because any honest assessment of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has to take into account the fact that 90% of existing global petroleum reserves are in the Middle East, and also that the U.S. is tied into long-term relationships with Israel and Saudi Arabia that revolve around military and economic issues (certainly not around "democratic or humanitarian concerns").

The press has done the American public a grave disservice by failing to openly discuss these issues. For example, we know that European concerns about Iran and Russia and nuclear power have a lot to do with Gazprom's stranglehold over European energy supplies, and we know that European interests hope to start importing gas from Iraq via Turkey - and so they are supporting U.S. goals in Iraq - which are still mostly about making sure that a "U.S.-friendly regime" is installed in Iraq, for purposes of oil & gas control, military base installation, and the rest of what the Iraqi oil unions call "the colonial program."

Similar considerations explain why the U.S. press will never mention the Israeli nuclear program in the same article with the Iranian nuclear program (although these are the two leading candidates for the "rogue nuclear state" label).

I suppose the reason the U.S. press won't discuss these issues is that it would lead, inevitably, to a discussion of the real U.S. military-economic agenda in the Middle East - and that would result in the press presenting an image of the U.S. as an aggressively militant nation bent on controlling the resources of the region.

It could be that the press hates to be accused of a lack of patriotism - but since when is it patriotic to deceive the public? Our current government has bypassed the robber baron administrations of the 1890s in greed, crime, and general incompetence - and yet the press is mostly running with the see-no-evil routine.