Barack Obama described his plan for Iraq in a New York Times editorial. Obama anchored is piece on “the call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq”. Obama wrote, “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.” The BBC had access to Maliki’s actual press conference and wrote this (emphasis mine):
US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline. The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates. …. It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word “withdrawal”.
What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”
Intrigued by the difference between the press release version and Maliki’s actual remarks, the BBC dug further and found that Iraq’s position was somewhat nebulous. The Status of Forces negotiations are still underway between the US and Iraq and it would have been natural for Maliki to remain vague about a matter that is still under negotiation. The BBC tracked the subsequent changes and found the Iraqi position to suggest both meanings as one would have expected on a matter on which is still under discussion.
Mr Maliki’s own office had inserted the word “withdrawal” in the written version, replacing the word “presence”.
Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister’s office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.
The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.
He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops.
Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline.
He said the talks were focused on agreeing on “timeline horizons, not specific dates”, and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.
But Barack Obama has taken one point under negotiation and assumed an outcome even though it is an actually still under discussion. He went on to write at the NYT about the “will of the Iraqi people” which he presumably knows in advance:
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.
What happens if the “timeline horizons” that the Iraqi government negotiates with the US are longer than Obama’s plan for withdrawal? The Iraqis could hardly force the US to stay. So a President Obama’s policy would be determinative. If that policy happened to coincide with the “will of the Iraqi people” it would be just ducky. But for the moment Obama hasn’t asked them.
Tip Jar.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
47 Comments
Teresita:So a President Obama’s policy would be determinative. If that policy happened to coincide with the “will of the Iraqi people” it would be just ducky. But for the moment Obama hasn’t asked them.
If Obama asked them, the talking point would be that Obama is measuring for curtains in the White House prior to his coronation. Did McCain ask the Iraqis anything when he was over there on one of his photo-ops? No, but he did take the trouble to demean Maliki’s call for timetables as merely a political move.
“I’ve always said we will come home with honor and with victory, and not through a set timetable.”
Of Maliki, McCain said, “Look, he’s a politician. He is a leader of a country that’s finally coming together.
Jul 14, 2008 - 6:58 pm Lifeofthemind:Surrender and withdrawal is the core issue that the NYT supports Obama on. On other issues they are clearly getting a bad feeling about him. They will us any trick to nail Obama’s colors to the mast with a white flag on it. Falsifying transcripts is a small matter to them. This is not Scotty Reston’s Times. Their ethics are now comfortable with the spirit of “Fake but accurate” that lead CBS into the Bush memo scandal.
Jul 14, 2008 - 7:19 pm Richard Fernandez:Obama certainly has a right to his own policy as Commander in Chief. But trying to say that it’s the “will of the Iraqi people” isn’t quite correct. There was an exchange on Meet the Press which examplified getting cover for something that he’s already decided to do:
Logically the process would have been to ask the commanders first and announce the policy later. But since the policy has already been announced what does he expect from the commanders? Insubordination? A pretext to weasel out? Can he actually say, ‘the commanders told me that my policy was infeasible so I’m changing my mind?’ What would that say about Obama’s competence.
I think the best thing all around is for him to make a decision and accept the responsibility. After all that’s what most people do.
Jul 14, 2008 - 8:30 pm NahnCee:I’m not an Obama fan, and therefore do not follow his various pronouncements that closely, but can someone remind me of one single time when he has *ever* made a decision and then accepted responsibility for it?
Jul 14, 2008 - 9:50 pm John Samford:Above and Beyond all that, the simple fact is that Iraq IS NOT A WAR. It is a campaign or a theater in a global war. NOTHING the US does in Iraq will end the war. Nothing. Stay, go, win lose, the war will go on. This administration’s idea that Democracy is some sort of virus that will infect the ME if we grow it in Iraq is completely delusional.
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:17 pm krontekag:Think about it. If Democracy was a virus, then why is Cuba still under the rule of a despot? N. Korea? Russia? If Japan didn’t infect Russia, how the ‘ell will Iraq infect Saudi Arabia?
It won’t. Iraq is important because it is the laboratory for the tactics we will need to do regime change in about 20 other countries. That is the ugly job in front of America. If the left accepts the fact that Iraq is part of a global war, then they also buy into having to do regime change on a whole bunch of despots. Or surrender. Once they figure out that they will be the first ones executed, that idea will vanish.
So by pretending that Iraq is a stand alone war, the left can fight tooth and nail for the terrorists at every opportunity. For some silly reason I can’t figure out, the left thinks that this war was caused by OIF. It’s like, WTC, the U.S.S. Cole and 4700+ attacks between 1980 and 2000 never happened.
John Samford: If Democracy was a virus, then why is Cuba still under the rule of a despot? N. Korea? Russia? If Japan didn’t infect Russia, how the ‘ell will Iraq infect Saudi Arabia?
Antibodies, in the form of the opposing ideologies of collectivism and fascism (or the not uncommon blending of the two).
The effort to spread democracy is not unnopposed - but it is progressing, bit by bit. There are more democraciese today than there have ever been.
But you are right - Iraq is only a part of the current global conflict.
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:32 pm Eggplant:If you’ll pardon the cliche, B. Hussein is between Iraq and a hard place.
His political power base is the moonbat left. Their unnegotiable core belief is the U.S. must fail in Iraq. A couple weeks ago, Hussein began to hint of pivoting on Iraq and the moonbats responded with shrieks of horror. If the moonbats abandon Hussein then he has lost this election. He has no option but to make immediate retreat from Iraq the cornerstone of his candidacy. However the war in Iraq is almost won. McCain only needs to make this fact obvious to most voters and Hussein is finished.
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:45 pm wretchard:It looks like McCain has decided to draw his line in the sand over Iraq — Obama would swap Iraq war loss for election win: McCain camp. I’m not sure how this will play out, but here are some possibilities. It is possible that McCain has waited until Obama stretched himself thin before delivering his set piece. Timing is everything in war and probably in politics too. Maybe McCain is making his move now when Obama, if the polls are to be believed, is more vulnerable than he was a month ago.
That said, not every counterstroke — even well timed ones — works. Sometimes the other guy simply has too much momentum. The Left will almost certainly close ranks behind Obama and ululate. The reaction doesn’t have to be coherent, just vociferous. Enough noise can drown out anything. It’s far from clear a real scrap is starting, but if it does, may McCain will back out and apologize as he so often does for hurting BHO’s feelings. Or maybe he’ll deliberately change pace.
Who knows McCain is Senatorial and the courtliness of the chamber has left him with bad habits in an all-in scrap. By contrast BHO is a hustler and never heard of Senatorial courtliness, not likely to inasmuch as he may not even finish his Senate term before the White House. So in a scrap, BHO may out-gouge and out-scratch McCain. Still, a lot also depends on how well Obama handles a real McCain attack — if McCain is indeed finally attacking. BHO’s instincts are to dodge and weave or attack off topic, but attack. Dance away and jab. We saw him do it to Hillary. He has been able to get away with it so far. But like a fighter in the middle rounds who has relied on speed to cover his risky moves, he may have lost just enough speed to catch on the chin.
But I don’t think McCain can put him down for the count on Iraq, largely because Left and Right are so even balanced that almost no single hit can KO BHO. To get BHO McCain has to put together a combination, deliver a real flurry that ends with a haymaker that comes out of nowhere. So far John McCain has been plodding around the ring. Has been shamming? Or are the political skills simply not there? We’ll soon see.
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:30 am 49erDweet:NahnCee is still waiting for an answer, somebody. Anybody? Hmmmmmmm.
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:42 am Nomenklatura:Most of the electorate still isn’t paying attention, so what we are seeing now is just sparring. Any knockout blow will have to come later, quite likely around the time of the debates.
It’s quite likely Obama’s team will think he won the crucial encounter, at the very moment that the bulk of the electorate concludes that he is too slick to be trusted.
Obama is a true heir to ‘Slick Willie’, except that he frequently feels a compulsion to display a contempt for his audience. Leftists don’t notice this because they share the underlying attitude.
Jul 15, 2008 - 1:15 am Panday:None of that matters. We’re talking about Obama, who can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and however he wants, and his minions will take it as the truth.
This is the same man who calls enforcing the law “terrorism” and proves that the Left’s procilivity toward hysteria, emotionalism, and hyperbole is alive and well:
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:42 am Al Reasin:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN_GO3YAdEA
I find it interesting that the elderly FDR Democratic voters are not being polled or if they are, their positions are certainly not being taunted this go-a-round. Since I have a limited number of friends and relatives who are in their 80’s, my information is not very scientific.
Not a one of the 8 I know who are over 80 will vote for Mr. Obama. 3 have volunteered that they have never voted for a Republican before. I can remember when this group was a much talked about demographic in the Democratic Party; the ones who were told the Republicans would take away their SS and they voted solidly for Democrats. These FDR Democrats would have voted for Mrs. Clinton but not Mr. Obama.
I wonder how widespread this is within that supposedly reliable Democratic demographic.
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:24 am RWE:Eggplant:
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:45 am programmer:Great minds think alike!
Take a look at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/319arhaa.asp
I’m not sure what this means, if anything, but a few days ago my daughter, a staunch conservative, and I, were having a discussion about the coming election. I stated that I thought that Obama would win the election by a landslide, defining landslide as over 60% of the popular vote. She disagreed and stated she thought he would only win by 1%. My 11 year old grandson, who was reading a book while my daughter and I discussed our differing opinions, piped up and opined that he thought McCain would win by 1 to 2 percent. Somewhat surprised, I asked him why he thought that. He said that he and all his friends in school discussed politics during their free time and based on his (and their) reading of the newspapers, watching of television news, etc. felt that McCain had the more substantive position.
I said, “I thought all you guys did was play video games”. He said, “Just after school, Gramps”.
Just in case anyone wonders about his use of the term substantive, this is the kid that told me when asked what he thought about a particular popular movie I had taken him to see, “Well, Gramps, I don’t believe that the writers established a firm contextual reference for the character’s motivations.”
Since this demographic is way to young to vote, as I prefaced this comment, I’m not sure what it means, if anything, but perhaps it does bode well for future elections.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:24 am Doug:“All your base
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:25 am David Levine:belong under the bus.“
The other problem is Obama’s statement that “I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.” Which war is he talking about? I think he means the war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq is part of a larger war. If Obama is intent on ending THAT war, he would have my full support. Instead, he is rather saying he wants to end a battle in the war. That misunderstanding of the the larger nature of this war is a problem…
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:55 am Herb:OT:
Go back to the posting on “Sent” (08June) Then go read the now famous New Yorker article on the Obama. Some parts of that are awfully familiar.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:02 am Capitol Boy:Hardcore ideologues believe what they want to.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:10 am Capitol Boy:I’m talking about you.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:11 am Roderick Reilly:“”"”Obama is a true heir to ‘Slick Willie’, except that he frequently feels a compulsion to display a contempt for his audience.”"”"”
Good observation. Obama needs to start “feeling their pain.”
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:16 am Old Blue:Obama is a candidate who has demonstrated no grasp of the nature of the war that we are fighting. He appeals to those who have no grasp of the war that we are engaged in.
When the twin towers fell, the entire nation cried out in blood lust for revenge. This was followed immediately by a call to destroy this threat to our national security and the security of the free world.
Blood lust has faded, but was not replaced with the resolve of understanding. That is a failure of the Bush administration, the military, and of a press that views itself as being above nationality.
Opposition to the war, fueled by blind opposition to an administration, has effectively carried its insensible message, while the administration has done a horrible job of engaging the nation. Obama appeals to the mass of undereducated who buy popcorn TV and the moonbats who simply hate Bush. Big slice, unfortunately.
It has simply become vogue to “oppose the war in Iraq.” An idiot can seem a thinker to the majority by parotting this line.
It is hilarious that Obama already counts the election won, but he may very well carry it. We deserve everything we get.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:28 am Jrod:Michael Yon just trumped Obama:
“We have won the war in Iraq. By “we” I mean the Coalition and the Iraqis. Unless there is some unexpected reversal, what lays ahead is the challenge of building a better Iraq. There is still violence. We have lost four soldiers to combat this month, but there were times when we lost that many on an average day. There still are attacks, though we have finally reached the point where all that’s left are truly “dead-enders.” Al Qaeda is still a problem, but their numbers are decreasing in Iraq. The Iraqi people are sick of the violence. The Iraqi Army is filled with courageous soldiers who can fight. It is possible that by the end of the year we can really say, “Mission Accomplished,” except for the continued support that Iraq will need.
Personally, my optimism has never been higher for Iraq.”
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:44 am Alexis:When Senator Obama goes into “if only” and “we could have”, I bristle. Back in 2002, leftists could have proposed to vastly increase the size of our military, rebuild our infrastructure, and push our economy toward battery-powered cars instead making it a choice between liberating Iraq and sitting on our hands. But they didn’t. And now we are in Iraq partly because the opposition didn’t come up with any better counterargument back in 2002. So, we now hear talk like, “If only we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we could have [fill in the blank]…” This just annoys me because the “anti-war” activists didn’t point out what could have been accomplished other than invade Iraq.
Why didn’t Barack Obama recommend invading Pakistan in 2002? Well? Why didn’t he?
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:45 am Paul:One of the key issues McCain has not addressed is what is our approach to the wider War of Terror. He appears to only be concerned strictly with our military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. We get no strategic thinking on the wider issues. Iran? The economic or political effects?
Beyond completing the mission in Iraq, the two biggest issues out there are how do we prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and how do reduce our dependence on foreign oil. McCain is largely AWOL on both and is endangering on troops in the process.
What will be our response be if Iran gets the Bomb? What will be our response if Israel attacks Iran, and Iran retaliates by stopping the flow of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, or worse yet, hitting our homeland via Hezbollah? The American public needs to be discussing these issues right now. They’re not. If Iran gets the Bomb, we will have a huge problem.
The oil crisis is just another front in the wider war. We are losing on that front too. Our vulnerability on oil has led to a very weak dollar. The weak dollar and the resultant higher commodity prices forced the Fed to hold down the money supply ( the money supply value M1 has not grown in three years) far too long.
In large part, regardless of past foolish lending practices, the inability to work out the bad loans through new sales and lending has caused our severe credit crunch to spin out of control. We now may be on the verge of an economic disaster as a result.
Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have clearly been players in pushing up the price of oil. We have financed their misadventures around the world, with our high gas prices. It is also in the interest of Iran, Russia and Venezuela to take us down several notches. They are on the verge of succeeding.
McCain has been part of the problem, not the solution for too long. He has endangered our security in his pandering to the left. His continued pandering gives the left and the democrats cover for not drilling. We’re in deep trouble unless we start to tap all our oil resources, including ANWR, soon.
Jul 15, 2008 - 8:55 am MG:Paul,
In war, it is unwise to telegraph one’s punches. Yes, you have properly identified important issues. Were a Presidential nominee to offer any specific responses to your “what ifs”, they would conclusively demonstrate their unfitness for Commander-in-Chief.
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:08 am David M:The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:44 am Eggplant:Concerning the Iraq War issue and B. Hussein, Wretchard said:
“Still, a lot also depends on how well Obama handles a real McCain attack — if McCain is indeed finally attacking. BHO’s instincts are to dodge and weave or attack off topic, but attack. Dance away and jab. We saw him do it to Hillary.”
In the following MSM article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index.html
Key quote:
“Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday called the war in Iraq a “dangerous distraction,” and said more emphasis must be placed on the battle in Afghanistan.”
This is an intelligent counter-move. B. Hussein’s de facto allies are the Islamic fascists. The fascists have almost lost in Iraq but are still a potent force in Afghanistan. McCain’s response should be that we have been victorious in Iraq but Iraq is only one battle in a larger war. We will defeat the Islamic fascists, step by step in every theater of war at our schedule not the enemy’s (recycle some of Churchill’s quotes). That’s the basic motivation behind the Iraq War, i.e. it’s best to kill Islamic fascists in Baghdad rather than on the streets of New York or London. McCain needs to force B. Hussein to admit that we’ve achieved victory in Iraq after following a wise but flawed strategy.
Nomenklatura said:
“Most of the electorate still isn’t paying attention, so what we are seeing now is just sparring. Any knockout blow will have to come later..”
It’s important that no knockout blow be delivered until AFTER Hussein has been annointed by the Democrat Party convention. Again, McGovern’s popularity did not collapse until after he was nominated.
Nomenklatura also said:
“It’s quite likely Obama’s team will think he won the crucial encounter, at the very moment that the bulk of the electorate concludes that he is too slick to be trusted.”
Obviously many of Hussein’s lieutenants are hard-core leftists and divorced from reality. If Hussein followed their advice, he would have already lost to Hillary. Hussein’s genius is his understanding that 1960’s style left wing ideology is the passion behind his political base but also the poison that could kill his campaign with the general public. When Hussein faces his own troops he must comes across like Che Guevara but when he faces the general public he must change masks and present himself as Robert Kennedy. Screw Up #1 for Hussein is to come across as Robert Kennedy to the moonbats or present himself as Che Guevara to the general public. Hussein’s less savy lieutenants will be shrieking at him to be Che Guevara to everyone. Let’s hope that Hussein does this AFTER the Democrat convention.
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:12 am Eggplant:Christopher Hitchens understands B. Hussein’s counter-move, refer to:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195288/
Strategies within strategies within strategies. It’s like something out of Frank Herbert’s “Dune”.
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:36 am sirius_sir:Sen. Barack Obama called the war in Iraq a “dangerous distraction,” and said more emphasis must be placed on the war in Afghanistan.
Dangerous distraction for al Qaeda, yes. Not so much any longer for our side. Also, putting up a stable sovereign (if imperfect) democratic Iraq discomfits the Islamic Revolution and thwarts the Iranian desire for regional dominance. (Not even to mention all the oil we’ve stolen in the bargain!)
But let’s not discourage Obama from hitching his political star to the war in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, which has devolved to a policing action (but still requiring close oversight) AFghanistan will continue be an exceedingly hard slog for the foreseeable future. And should Obam win the Presidency no-one should allow him to forget his commitment.
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:36 am Alexis:Was the European theater a “dangerous distraction” from defeating Japan during WWII? After all, it was the Japanese Empire that bombed Pearl Harbor; no German or Italian troops were involved in that attack.
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:07 pm Eggplant:John McCain has made an effective response. Refer to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/strategy_for_victory_in_afghan.html
One of B. Hussein’s main weaknesses has been identified. Let’s hope McCain keeps up the pressure.
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:20 pm Boghie:I fully agree with Obama on withdrawing forces from areas of conflict.
But, I think it best to withdraw in order task ‘completion’.
There may be other arenas, but let us withdraw and surrender the following in the order presented:
Italy
France
Germany
Japan
South Korea
Anybody in Southeast Asia
Kuwait
Iraq
And then Afghanistan.
That way we can build on surrender retreat strategies with easy losses before we bail out in more challenging environments. If we practice a Surrendering Blitzkrieg in Italy, France, Germany, and Japan we may even be able to bail out of Afghanistan using air-lift capability only. Senator Obama, think through the issues of surrendering Afghanistan. I mean there aren’t too many friendlies in the area. Surrender will be a dangerous proposition with Afghan Warlords shooting at our helicopters and transports. I think Iraq would be a bit simpler, but I am certain the long trail of retreating Americans will revive the civil war – or whatever you call it in today’s speech. Save these valiant retreats until we build and train for them. Maybe new ‘weapons’ and tactics will be necessary. Maybe we could ‘surge’ troops experienced in Sun Tzu’s art of retreat into the region. Veteran Retreaters.
‘President’ Obama, it is hard for America to quit.
Baby steps – PLEASE!!!
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:31 pm Lilith:Alexis: Was the European theater a “dangerous distraction” from defeating Japan during WWII? After all, it was the Japanese Empire that bombed Pearl Harbor; no German or Italian troops were involved in that attack.
No, but Africa/Sicily/Italy for all of 1943 and half of 1944 were a waste of time and resources. In the end, the Nazis could fall back to the inpenetrable Alps and make a stand there defending the passes. Soft underbelly of Europe indeed. Everything was about looking busy for Stalin. So hanging Saddam by his neck in Baghdad had the same strategic impact on the real War Against Terror as hanging Moussolini by his feet in Milan had on the real War against the Nazis. Specifically: little to none.
Jul 15, 2008 - 2:09 pm Brian H:It’s a new day. I’m in my seventh decade, and can remember no instance of a person, group, or country so eager to lose and surrender as the Democrats. I think I comprehend how they got to that place, but it’s still an astonishing development. Even once in a while, one suddenly stops and says, “What was I THINKING?”. But it’s an open question whether many or enough will do so in time.
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:29 pm Brian H:Erratum: “Even though once in a while …”
Jul 15, 2008 - 3:30 pm Paul:Lilith. “So hanging Saddam by his neck in Baghdad had the same strategic impact on the real War Against Terror as hanging Moussolini by his feet in Milan had on the real War against the Nazis. Specifically: little to none.” Don’t you think that opening yet another front against the Third Reich put a teeny bit of strain on their military and industrial capacity to wage war? Let’s see, they were fighting against the Soviets in the East and the Allies across the oceans and from the skies. Now they had to expend men and material to fight in Southern Europe while anticipating an attack from the west across the Channel. Or do you believe that they had infinite resources in weapons and personnel and could withstand any assault as some seem to think the jihadis have?
Way OT but, Al Reasin: My parents are considerably older than your aunt. I had the following conversation with my father prior to Hillary dropping out.
So, are you going to vote for McCain?
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:15 pm Tony:Nope, I’m voting for Hillary.
Hmm, I seem to recall you thought she’s a crook and a liar.
She is, but she’ll make a good President.
How about Obama?
Never.
Today Obama fervently argued that Operation Enduring Freedom - Iraq has been a waste. How does that feel, that sense of discarding so much blood, treasure, every last measure?
My Dad came home from Korea and the local from WWII would tell him “Aww, that was nothin’, kid.” Even worse, Vietnam vets were openly reviled when they got home.
Hail Noble OEF vets - your next President welcomes you home with his judgement of the Iraq War: It … “diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century.”
He says Iraq was a distraction, not central to our strategic interests. IFF the global economy ran on heroin instead of oil, Afghanistan would rank closely to Iraq among our strategic interests.
When I hear the Obama audience (NYT incl.) cheer this drivel, I can’t help thinking of George Carlin: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:16 pm 3Case:What!? WHAT!?!! The Democrat is talking out his a**!? Quelle suprise!!
Jul 15, 2008 - 4:49 pm sirius_sir:If he means for us to actually believe what he says, Obama may easily find himself a few years hence in the unenviable position of explaining how he lost Iraq and got us mired in Pakistan.
Jul 15, 2008 - 5:12 pm Peterike:Lilith. So hanging Saddam by his neck in Baghdad had the same strategic impact on the real War Against Terror as hanging Moussolini by his feet in Milan had on the real War against the Nazis. Specifically: little to none.
Sadly, the impact of Swingin’ Saddam was greatly muted by the much larger impact of the crackpot Left and the Democrats. Indeed, all the Arab thugs on the planet were quaking in their sheets when we first went into Iraq. Recall how quickly Quadaffi gave it all up. Others might have fallen in line, as well, had not the Left/Democrats made it supremely clear that they were going to have their “It’s Vietnam All Over Again” party, and would oppose, oppose, oppose and smear and smear and lie and lie about our affairs in Iraq.
By the time we got to Saddam, the rest of the Arab Thugocracy knew damn well they had nothing to fear because the Democrats were carrying the ball for them. How much does a strongman have to fear from a country when half the political class is calling its OWN soldiers murderers and criminals?
God, how they must laugh at our folly. Half the Senate ought to be put up against a wall.
Jul 15, 2008 - 6:19 pm Wadeusaf:“Blood lust has faded, but was not replaced with the resolve of understanding. That is a failure of the Bush administration, the military, and of a press that views itself as being above nationality.”
First of all, allow me to add my thank you for your service. Your commentary shows that your depth of experience and understanding were hard won in the service of your country and humanity and your fellow troops. Thank you.
That said, The frustrations of not appearing to have the support or at the very least the understanding of a seeming distracted nation is rooted in many failures, but it is not a new phenomenon. But the war on the home front while very important, has not been given the priority needed, nor has the information war overseas been given the critical attention it deserves.
It is still a new kind of war, a new kind of enemy and a new kind of warrior is being asked to perform multiple tasks once delegated to diplomats, construction crews and psychologists as well as maintaining mastery of arms and self control. But despite the efforts of our finest, and the finest from a number of countries determined to put an end to the sense-less-ness of Islamist organized terror, just putting a name on the enemy, a name to the fight and defining what victory will look like seems beyond the grasp of many politicians, beyond the capacity of most journalists, and therefore out of the grasp of most of our fellow citizens. For over sixteen years now the wonks in DC have been trying to define what the enemy is, who the enemy is and how they have earned our enmity.
I think the war will be chronicled in history, and accurately named historically, but the lack of identifying tags, rally points, or even measures of right and wrong are a cultural phenomenon, and are hampering if not outright hamstringing the efforts of our military. That such a simple task has not been accomplished is a measure of how difficult it is.
Jul 15, 2008 - 9:55 pm Doug:Obama’s Achilles Heel Is Obama
This campaign is already crystallizing around one question: “Do I really want the next president of the United States to be this fellow Barack Obama?”
Despite his admirable qualities, McCain grows harder to discern on the political radar screen. Fewer people seem to be interested in asking themselves, “What do I see in John McCain that really makes me want him to be president?”
It looks now as though this election may turn on one issue: Obama as Obama.
By subordinating conflicting policy issues, almost to the point of extinction, Obama is leaving himself (whoever that is), his background (wherever that is) and his integrity (such as that may be) as all that matters.
Ironically, Obama as Obama is the issue upon which Obama first introduced himself to voters. Even “change” was a derivative of Obama as Obama.
Obama as Obama recalls his embarrassing support, then disavowal, of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That reintroduces the collateral issue of flip-flopping — not necessarily specific flips on which Obama has flopped, but the vague impression of flip-floppery as his personal way of political life. That’s a nasty set of sub-issues Obama doesn’t need, for it echoes Obama as Obama.
Each time Barack Obama reaches for another of his policy-issue boomerangs, he would be well advised not to forget to duck.
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:57 am Staring In Disbelief:Lilith:
Read a book or two before you make astoundingly asinine comments like “Africa/Sicily/Italy for all of 1943 and half of 1944 were a waste of time and resources.” and “it was all about looking busy for Stalin.” Pick up “An Army At Dawn” by Rick Atkinson. Our Army was brave and committed, but hopelessly unready for combat until it had fought through 2 years of OJT in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. The cross channel invasion would have been a disaster without the lessons learned in combined arms tactics, air support and logistics. As brutal as the fight was across Normandy and Europe, there are thousands of graves across the Mediterranean littoral that testify to the price that had to be paid to build an army capable of D Day. Also, the campaigns in North Africa, Sicily and Italy ground down hundreds of thousands of Wehrmacht troops, tanks, vehiles, guns, ships and aircraft that might have tipped the balance at Stalingrad or Kursk. I’m sure the Germans missed them badly when they were gone, as the eastern front was capable of consuming every man Germany had, and the battles there in 1942 and 1943 were very close run affairs.
Jul 16, 2008 - 2:18 pm Solon:Maliki seems to be misquoted and/or mispoken an awful lot when it comes to the issue of troop withdrawal. No doubt there will be corrections and refinements forthcoming:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
‘AS SOON AS POSSIBLE’
Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama’s Withdrawal Plans
In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama’s 16 month timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Jul 20, 2008 - 8:13 am Zenster:Wadeusaf: But despite the efforts of our finest, and the finest from a number of countries determined to put an end to the sense-less-ness of Islamist organized terror, just putting a name on the enemy, a name to the fight and defining what victory will look like seems beyond the grasp of many politicians, beyond the capacity of most journalists, and therefore out of the grasp of most of our fellow citizens.
The words of Srdja Trifkovic ring ever more true:
The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty. [emphasis added]
Jul 23, 2008 - 9:29 am