Obama takes the offensive on Iraq

July 14, 2008

Barack Obama’s consistent opposition to the Bush/McCain policy in Iraq has been encouraging, but in advance of an upcoming trip to Baghdad, Obama is facing a reporter/Republican uproar about inconsistencies in his position — which appear to exist only in the minds of his detractors at the McCain campaign, the RNC, and the newsrooms everywhere.

Under the circumstances, Obama is taking the offensive. The senator is scheduled to deliver a “major policy address on Iraq and national security” in DC tomorrow — he’ll defend his policy of a 16-month withdrawal — and helps establish a tone for the week with an NYT op-ed today.

I noted over the weekend that the new-found interest in a U.S.-withdrawal policy among top Iraqi officials gives Obama an important edge. Obama seems to agree.

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

And what of the security improvements we’ve seen this year? The improvements reinforce Obama’s policy, not undermines.

[T]he same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

It presents voters with a choice — take advantage of the opportunity, or prepare for an indefinite war followed by an indefinite military presence in a country that is ready for us to leave.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

Obama’s policy in no way resembles the far-right caricature — a 16-month timeline, executed in consultation with commanders on the ground, mindful of conditions as they develop. Obama would leave a “residual force” to target AQI, protect American service members, and if officials take advantage of the political opportunities, train Iraqi security forces. Obama is also committed to ensuring Iraq’s stability through regional diplomacy and cooperation, and would invest $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

It’s not “precipitous”; it’s not “surrender”; and it’s not “cut and run.” What’s more, it’s not a change — Obama is articulating the same policy, with the same goals, he’s had throughout his campaign.

And perhaps most importantly, Obama does what Dems have often neglected to do — explain why withdrawing from Iraq serves our national security interests.

Will any of this be heard over the stupidity that mars our discourse? Obama sounds optimistic.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Here’s hoping he’s right.

Sounds like the Obama I voted for in the primary. Too bad he didn’t show this kind of leadership with clear distinction between the McAce’s and Bush’s of the world on the FISA debacle…It would have made his overall positions more consistent with his rhetoric in the primaries.

  • This morning on NPR Cokie Roberts said hat Obama has been catching fla from the left about his “changing position” on Iraq. It’s infuriating listening to the media outlets spin this campaign with no regard for the truth. Maybe this speech will put these Iraq questions to rest in the MSM, but I won’t hold my breath.

  • But 3 months ago he had a 16 month timetable to get out of Iraq.

    And today he says he has a 16 month timetable to get out of Iraq.

    But with 3 months gone by, it should be a 13 MONTH TIMETABLE at this point.

    He clearly has changed his position.

    (How do you do the “rolling eyes — cause I’m dealing with idiots — emoticon, anyway?)
    🙂

  • Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.

    As I’ve said before, each of the different Iraqi factions will have to make painful sacrifices. The leaders that offer to make those sacrifices will probably be committing political, if not actual, suicide. As long as the U.S. military is in Iraq keeping the situation from getting too bad, the leaders have no incentive to make the sacrifices that are necessary to achieve a stable peace.

  • According to our own military, Iraq is safer today because we sat down and talked with the different religious factions like the Sunni’s. Violence has decreased not because of the increased threat of being shot by a conquering army but because mutual agreements were made to focus hostility on Al Qaeda. Also, violence is down simply because large numbers of Iraqis have fled to safer regions of Iraq or moved to other countries altogether. It is still not safe to walk the streets of Baghdad or travel to the airport. Obama needs to keep forcefully saying we will leave Iraq and keep this a difference between the Democratic party and the republicans.

  • Great Op-Ed.

    “But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender”

    Obama isn’t just talking about Republicans here – by “those responsible for the blunder” he could as well be talking about the Braindead TV Media.

    Case in point, take Tom Brokaw, on Meet the Press:

    “But, let me be clear about this, he says he’ll listen to commanders on the ground. He’s going there. But before he goes there, he says, “The day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll have Joint Chiefs in the office with instructions to get them out in 16 months. So the real question is why even go if you know that you want to do that in advance?”

    What a stupid question, Tom. It’s so clear you are trying to make an issue about an imaginary flip-flop when there is none. You could have asked instead about staying vs withdrawal, since that’s the real difference between the two campaigns.

  • Ohioan said:

    “But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender”

    Obama isn’t just talking about Republicans here – by “those responsible for the blunder” he could as well be talking about the Braindead TV Media.

    And let’s not forget the gutless Democratic Congressional leadership. Instead of demanding answers and holding the Bush administration to account for the endless stupidity and corruption they hid under their desks and soiled themselves at the mere threat of having a right-wing talking point aimed in their direction.

    http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

  • In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

    Heh.

    Take that, Mr “100 years”.

    Note to Democrats: THAT is how you take on the Republicans.

  • “major policy address on Iraq and national security”

    Let’s hope it is not like the “major policy addresses” Bush used to give circa 2004 and 2006.

    As I remember, Bush woulda announce a “major policy” speech and reporters would gather to hear him blather on about getting’em over there so we don’t have to fight’em over here, opposing Bush’s policy was like waving a white flags to the terrorists and on and on and on.

  • #9 Steve: I don’t disagree in that Dem passivity has been frustrating, including on occasion Obama himself.

    But the stakes are too high for us to not focus on making sure the debate on Iraq is framed by us, and not by either Republicans or the media.

    Example, we have McCain adviser and proud neo-con Randy Scheunemann saying this today (7/14/08): “Senator Obama seems to think losing a war will help him win an election.”

    That’s how THEY want to frame the debate – Obama cannot allow it to boil down to soundbites.

  • Well, when Obama says it, it’s ‘surrender’. OTOH, when McCain says it, it’s ‘victory’.

  • “Will any of this be heard over the stupidity that mars our discourse?”

    Nope. CB, you keep forgetting that the newsrooms of this nation are nothing more than McClone’s local campaign ofices.

  • Iraqis will come to their own agreements out of the “necessity” to do so. It’s outrageous enough that US oil industries are taking 75% of their revenue producing oil for destroying their country but to remain policing their nation is just a poke in the eye of their attempt at self-governance.

    Maybe Gramm could step in and say…”Let them eat cake” as he suggested to Americans.

  • btw…the NYT held and barred the story of Bush’s illegal wiretapping program for 13 months…long after the elction was over to prevent it interfering with the election.

    Any attempt by the MSM to make Obama look good is just a trick to make us believe they are not completely partial.
    When will the public at large start believing the corruption of our democracy is very real. “Operation mockingbird” was and is a complete success and the CIA bragged about it in ’05. One look at TV news shows and Sunday discussion groups should prove that the wealthy own the news and they support the GOP tax cut republican agenda. Don’t believe these so called polls either…the race is not even close…but these polls are setting up republican steals. If McCain is proclaimed president then we will know we no longer live in a democracy. Just look at what a lack of government funding and increased corporate sponsorship has done to NPR. and Public television. The money party is killing our democracy with ownership of the media and turning our congress into future lobbyists or employees.

    “Armed revolution cannot defeat the US military…but it can effectively eliminate its political leaders” -Anonymous Unless the election is stolen..dems will win in a landslide.

  • I keep reading about how Obama will/needs to listen to the commanders on the ground when it comes to developing a strategy for Iraq. I’m assuming the authors mean US commanders.

    Just out of curiosity, does the Iraqi government have a say in any of this?

    If the Maliki government and the Iraqi parliament both decide that the US needs to leave sooner than 16 months, or want a complete withdrawl of all foreign forces from Iraq, even if these decisions run counter to what the US commanders on the ground report, then what?

  • Given that the Pentagon is about to issue a report next month that makes the case for an even-earlier withdrawal than Obama has suggested, I think ol’ Forrestfire McLame is about to go glug – glug – glug. And it’s likely to happen before the Thughout in St. Paul (haven’t they ever listened to Prairie Home Companion and learned that nobody with any class does anything in St. Paul????? /snark)

    • Comments are closed.