In response to Peacefrog2r,

First things first, please read and make any substantive comments you like. I am more interested about getting these things right than trying to figure out who is right.

The three most important things Obama will do when he takes office is 1) redefine the mission in Iraq and begin withdrawal of our combat troops as a signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to stay here forever and they need to step up and take responsibility for their own country; 2) deploy two more brigade combat teams to Afghanistan to fight the real al Qaeda and its leadership in the Afghan/Pakistan border; and 3) bring the leaders of the Middle East together and conduct real and meaningful diplomacy to find a solution that works to end the fighting.

So what are the details of all this?

With Iraq, Obama will first sit down with the JCS, SecDef, and the military leadership to start a full redeployment of our brigade combat teams beginning in the first 60 days of his term and going on over the next 16 months (one to two BCTs per month). This sends a clear message to the leadership of Iraq that they must step up and take back their country. Does this mean he will redeploy without regard to the situation on the ground everyone and let the country go to hell? No, not at all (the country is already in hell because we ruined it). He will be constantly monitoring progress and refocusing the mission accordingly. But the bottom line is the mission right now is not sustainable and something has to change.

With regards to Afghanistan/Pakistan, the reason for two more brigades is obvious, because Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al Qaeda is stronger now than they were in 2001. Our current strategy has only made them and Iran stronger. Obama caught a lot of heat for saying he would use military force in Pakistan "if we had actionable intelligence of the whereabouts of top al Qaeda officials, and Pakistan could not act", but if you think about it, that makes perfect sense. He didn't say we would invade Pakistan with ground forces, he didn't specify at all exactly how he would use force. But he understands that as Commander in Chief, you have a pretty vast arsenal of weapons and tactics at your disposal, and if launching a Hellfire or Cruise Missile from hundreds of miles away will get the job done, then so be it. Al Qaeda is our number one enemy, and we have completely lost focus of destroying them (the real al Qaeda in Afghan/Pakistan) by the war in Iraq.

Then the most important piece is diplomacy. Our current strategy with dealing with nations we don't like, like Iran and Syria, is we don't talk to them unless they completely agree with everything we say before we sit down. So of course Iran isn't going to want to talk because right now they are only getting stronger with each passing day we are occupied in Iraq. Iran has been the biggest winner out of every country in that region as a result of our current strategy, and even if we wanted to use force and had a real legitimate reason to do so, we could not because we couldn't sustain the kind of force necessary to get the job done in Iran. That country is like Iraq on steroids--it's bigger, more populated, and they have been getting stronger while our force has weakened severely. Tehran is a much bigger city than Baghdad, and the terrain of Iran is much more difficult for both fighting and logistics.

Both Iran and Syria have strong ties to Hizbollah and Hamas. Hizbollah has a great amount of support from the general public in Lebonon because they provide a lot of basic services for the people, and Hamas is the same in the Occupied Territories. You don't beat groups with that type of support by bombing them or with any type of military force because their roots are too deep. You have to get them to agree to work with you or you cut off their resources and turn the people on them. Iran, Syria, and Palestine are their main sources for everything they do, so they are the ones we should be dealing with.

What Obama has said is he will sit down with Al Assad (Syria) Abbas (Palestine), and Ahmedinejad (Iran) and let them know that they must stop supporting those two groups, and the ones fighting against our cause in Iraq, and Iran must give up its nuclear ambitions. When Obama says "without preconditions" please don't mistake this for a lack of preparation or unwillingness to address the real issues. He will also make it perfectly clear that Israel has the right to exist as a nation, he fully supports the Jewish State, and that they must agree to recognize Israel and stop the violence against them. If they agree to this, and we can hold them accountable to this, then we can talk more about addressing some foreign aide and trade agreements that will ultimately benefit everyone involved and hopefully lead to long-term peace in the region.

None of this is weak, soft, or appeasement. This is what is known as a very aggressive foreign policy that uses a mixed blend of diplomacy and military force. For some reason this administration has made us come to believe that the military option is the only option, but the only real successes they have had is through diplomatic action, like with North Korea and Lybia. Fighting wars works when you have no other options but to defend your freedom. If you involve your country in long wars like Iraq it only has negative consequences like a severely depleted military, a weakening currency, a huge national debt, and a loss of status in the World's eyes, along with actually making rouge groups like al Qaeda stronger. The bottom line is we want to put an end to violence and wars because they are counterproductive to our national security interests unless we have no other options. We are less safe today then we were before we involved ourselves in Iraq, and we have options, other than military force, with how we go forward from here.

Think about it and let me know what you think. This only scratches the surface.

Thanks for reading.