Zakaria urging Obama to address Iraq

In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria published what Obama should say about Iraq in his campaign.

With the waning of American people on Iraq, Obama's campaign focuses heavily on the domestic issues. This might turn out to be a mistake. As Zakaria points out that Obama needs to address the issue of Iraq before a possible inauguration in January, simply because it will be the first foreign policy decision Obama will have to deal with.

Zakaria is basically giving a Obama speech, of what he should say in order to not turn Iraq into a problem during the rest of his campaign and after a possible inauguration. According to this Obama should not rest on his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002 but use " a different premise" than Mc Cain.

I believe that the Iraq War was a major strategic blunder. It diverted us from the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan—the people who launched the attacks of 9/11 and who remain powerful and active today. We face threats in Iraq, but the two greatest ones, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have testified, are Al Qaeda (which is wounded but not dead) and Iran. Both are a direct consequence of the invasion. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003, and Iran's influence has expanded massively since then.

Zakaria also calls for Obama to embrace Patreus strategy of talking to the 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.

Pointing out the responsibility of the U.S. president as standing up for "America's interests across the globe" this strategy would allow Obama to embrace some Republicans that were opposed to the war, but would feel betrayed by isolationism. Despite obvious rethorical terminology that Zakaria phrased out for Obama to use, he gave a valuable blueprint for Obama to use.
He phrases out differences between Mc Cain and Obama that Obama could use to his advantage. Being opposed to The Iraq war but embracing a Reconstruction of Iraq, looking somewhat like

an Iraq that is a functioning, federal democracy with a central government and an army able to tackle the bulk of challenges they face. [BUT] General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have themselves said that no matter what success we achieve, there will remain some Al Qaeda presence in Iraq and some Iranian influence, since Iran is a neighbor.

One of the interesting points I've seen was the possible side effects of using the "talk to the enemy strategy" This is not only valuable in Iraq and would make discussions towards reconstruction and somewhat stability. This would further point out differences in approach both to McCain and especially to the Bush administration. On the foreign policy side of his administration it could even become a Obama doctrine, putting
Obama could thus establish a foreign policy doctrine based on the use of soft power - a quality imagined by European academics for Europe in contrast to the United States. More emphasis on engagement with "enemies" would help containing them diplomatically, in order to step up for America's interests around the globe without having to rely on the military as first method of engagement, like it has been for the last 7 years.

Also check out Rodger's post on Iraq at the Duck of Minerva (where I found Zakaria's article)

Also check this LA Times article