Obama On Iraq: Committed To Talking Points, Not Victory

Michael Gordon of the Times contrasts the results of interviews with McCain and Obama about their plans for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama remains committed to the talking points that got him the Democratic nomination - US withdrawal will push the Iraqis to make peace and we must shift forces to Afghanistan immediately because that is the central front in the war on terror.

I liked this passage:

Mr. Obama’s position on troop cuts was forged in late 2006 as Iraq appeared to be approaching a full-scale civil war. Drawing on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, he opposed Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan and sponsored legislation in January 2007 that would have removed all American combat brigades by the end of March 2008, while allowing a small force to remain for training, counterterrorism and the protection of the American Embassy and its personnel.

At that time, American intelligence agencies warned in a national intelligence estimate that the removal of all American and allied forces within 18 months would “almost certainly” lead to a significant increase in sectarian fighting, suggesting that the speedy, if partial, withdrawal advocated by Mr. Obama would also risk a major increase in violence.

That might have been torn from the pages of JOM, where the Jan 2007 NIE was cited a month ago.  And let's recycle a very good question from John Dickerson of Slate:

Obama's take on the surge also tells us how he processes information about Iraq. This has direct bearing on how he shapes his policy for the country today. The same choices are in play—will military tactics or withdrawal get the Iraqis to make political progress? If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation.

Or more simply, if Obama was wrong abut the surge why does anyone think he is right now?

The Times is tough on Obama throughout this article.  Another example:

A related and vital question is how the candidates hope to encourage the Iraqis to make headway on political reconciliation. For much of the Bush administration, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top commander in Iraq, emphasized transferring security tasks to Iraqi forces and slimming the American military presence as a way to get the Iraqis to take on added responsibilities. The result was sectarian violence, not political progress.

Asked if he could identify an instance in which a reduction or pullback of American troops had spurred the Iraqis to reconcile their differences, Mr. Obama argued that elevated troop levels had also not led to adequate political progress.

“It is not clear that an ongoing, open-ended presence has prompted political change in Iraq either,” he said. “The fact is that we still don’t have an oil law. We still don’t have provincial elections. We have not dealt with Kirkuk, and the argument for staying is that we have not made sufficient political progress.”

Shortly after Mr. Obama made this comment, Iraq’s Parliament approved provincial elections. However, the government has yet to address the dispute over Kirkuk, an oil-rich city claimed by Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkmens.

The Times conclusion captures the divide in public opinion:

The Stakes in Iraq

At its most basic, the dispute between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain centers on the importance of the American mission. For Mr. Obama, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and the efforts he would make there are essentially a matter of damage limitation. By defining a series of minimal goals, Mr. Obama would seek to reduce American forces.

Toward that end, Mr. Obama said his objective was a sovereign Iraq that was not a threat to the United States or its neighbors, was capable of controlling its own borders, was not a “base camp” for terrorists and was not experiencing “mass violence.” He said that it would be important that “the will of the Iraqi people is being expressed” though “the machinery of democracy may not be perfect.”

“I have to think about the fact that given our current levels of deployment our military is stretched very thin, and if we have a sudden situation, let’s say in North Korea right now, we have got some issues,” Mr. Obama said. “And that is before we start talking about the expenditures involved at a time when the administration just announced they want a $700 billion credit line. So that is the lens through which I view the situation in Iraq.”

We can't afford to win in Iraq.  The Democratic Party has come a long way from Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

For Mr. McCain, the problems the United States has encountered in Iraq stemmed from what he saw as the many blunders made during the early years of the occupation, errors that he asserts have been largely remedied by the surge of reinforcements and a new counterinsurgency strategy.

Although the Qaeda militants who planned the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did not carry out their plotting in Iraq, Mr. McCain argues that Qaeda militants, operating with Iraqi Sunnis, gained a foothold in the chaos that followed the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

“I agreed with both General Petraeus and Osama bin Laden, who both said that Iraq was the central battleground in this struggle,” Mr. McCain said. “And I also believe that Afghanistan is going to be a longer struggle in some respects. But the most important thing was that if we failed in Iraq, that it would have had adverse consequences throughout the region.”

Let's close with a point made by The Economist last July:

In fact, Mr Obama’s plan to shift America’s priorities towards Afghanistan probably depends on winning in Iraq if it is to succeed. He would find it much harder to repair America’s alliances while clamping down on Iran and putting pressure on Pakistan if he were to let Iraq lapse into chaos by withdrawing the bulk of America’s force there precipitately. Mr Obama still hints that he understands that. He spoke this week of making “tactical adjustments” to his plans as conditions in Iraq change. That leaves him a little room to keep troops in a bit longer.

Who in Afghanistan or Pakistan will believe in Obama's perseverance after he bails out of Iraq?

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

That's because he doesn't actually have any opinions of his own, only talking points.

[Perfect Sense]

ZerObama the new world standard in cut-in-run politics.

[bio mom]

The truth is that Obama doesn't care a fig about any of this. He is basically a social justice lefty who despises the military and anything to do with it. All the rest is political window dressing. He probably would be happy to do away with the entire dept. of defense if he could and use the money to fund social programs and more entitlements. I truly believe this.

[bio mom]

The truth is that Obama doesn't care a fig about any of this. He is basically a social justice lefty who despises the military and anything to do with it. All the rest is political window dressing. He probably would be happy to do away with the entire dept. of defense if he could and use the money to fund social programs and more entitlements. I truly believe this.

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

Obama is horrible on Iraq. I could never support anyone espousing those views while our troops are in the field and winning.

But I am afraid if the stock market keeps tanking this will all be academic. The fact that the democrats have been right in the middle of it will be ignored. Our side is in the distinct minority (35% or less), and I am not sure that even the talented Sarah can pull it out.

I hate to be pessimistic. It is not my nature. But even Rove is not his usual optimistic self.

This is a global bubble, and it is tough to get a handle on what will work. As the comments here indicate, our part of the population does not want to be taken care of and believes most people can, should and must take care of themselves.

The democrats major premise is that a significant portion of the population wants to be taken care of, and they want that group to believe they are the ones who will take care of them.

When the Dow is down 20% in less than a month and unemployment going up, how do we win?

[PapayaSF]

For much of the Bush administration, Donald H. Rumsfeld [...] emphasized transferring security tasks to Iraqi forces and slimming the American military presence as a way to get the Iraqis to take on added responsibilities.

So Obama's Iraq plan was basically the same as Rumsfeld's? And nobody has pointed this out before?

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting Military Times poll on the subject:

McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve . . .

On the issue of Iraq, 74% of military professionals think John McCain would do a better job (as opposed to 19% who favor Obama). On the overall DoD issue (weapons/size/strategy), McCain also pummels Obama 77% to 15%. On personnel issues (pay and benefits) it's 73% to 18%.

Surprisingly, character was the primary issue, economy second, Iraq was third (Obama did best on economics/domestic policy, losing only 53%-33%).

[Jor]

Almost everyone in the world and a large majority of Americans think Iraq was an extremely misguided war, completely unrelated to 9/11. I doubt anyone is going to think it has any bearing on the real war on terror. If anything it will make the majority of the muslim world realize that we are focused on those who are going to harm us and not everyone who is muslim.

[Jane Whitman]

Jor,

I'd like to think the "large majority of AMericans' are not that stupid. But you may be right.

[boris]

Almost everyone ...

A win goes down in history as rightous. One more example of US exceptionalism.

[aardvark]

When the Dow is down 20% in less than a month and unemployment going up, how do we win?

You have to pucker up and beg for that nice Mr. Obama to let you win. It's your only hope.

You must do it for the good of the nation. Start puckering, close your eyes, and think of America.

[BOATBUILDER]

Hey Jor--how much of that "large majority of Americans" belong to the same large majority which enthusiasticaly supported the war in the first place? Summer patriots!
Jane--not only stupid but entirely without principles.

[clarice]

"Who in Afghanistan or Pakistan will believe in Obama's perseverance after he bails out of Iraq?"
Surely Afghanistan and Pakistan have their own versions of the NYT, Newsweek, TNR, and the WaPo.
We can't harbor the only idiots in the world, can we?

[PeterUK]

"Almost everyone in the world and a large majority of Americans think Iraq was an extremely misguided war,"

I would wager that Iraq never enters the mind of "most people in the world" from on day to the next.It is also likely that a good proportion of them do not even know where Iraq is.

[PeterUK]

"You have to pucker up and beg for that nice Mr. Obama to let you win. It's your only hope."

So,you are saying Obama isn't standing in good faith? He has price for losing?

[qrstuv]

Jor,
You can argue until the cows come home as to whether it is suitable to take the Islamofascist ideology head on by enabling Saddam Hussein's 25 million former slaves to join civilization and choose their own future.

To ignore that line of reasoning, however, is simply passive-aggressive. Not that I expect any different from the leftist drivebys.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

It is also likely that a good proportion of them do not even know where Iraq is.

Including jor. Noone who looks at a map thinks that Iraq isn't relevant in the War on Terrorism.

And the Iraqis sure aren't part of that "almost everyone" or even "the majority of Americans."

[PeterUK]

Anything to oblige A map of the region. For those who are uncertain,Iraq is the yellow one.

[bgates]

PUK - I think jor is the yellow one.

[PeterUK]

bgates,
I always saw Jor as being a delicate shade of pink.

[Bill in AZ]

For much of the Bush administration, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top commander in Iraq, emphasized transferring security tasks to Iraqi forces and slimming the American military presence as a way to get the Iraqis to take on added responsibilities. Powell, Armitage, and Bremer sh!tcanned that idea. The result was sectarian violence, not political progress.

There - corrected the Times once again.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Afghan Taliban Awaken: Dump al-Qaeda And Sue For Peace

[Neo]

This is a bit more than a week old now, but ...

For the first time since Rasmussen Reports began polling on the issue, a plurality of voters in September say the U.S. mission in Iraq will be viewed as a success in the long term.

In a national telephone survey Monday night, 41% said history will rate the war in Iraq a success versus 39% who said it will be seen as a failure, with 20% undecided (see crosstabs). These findings echo those of the previous two weeks (see trends).

By contrast, in August of last year, 57% believed history would judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a failure, and only 29% disagreed.

[Neo]

I haven't donated a dime to any campaign, at any level of government in almost 20 years, but today I got a plea from McCain-Palin, complete with FedEx envelope.

[MartyH]

I pointed out on Michael Totten's blog months ago that Obama's strategy was the same as Rumsfeld's.

Obama's biggest problem is that even if he wants to extend the timeline, Congress will not let him. In the same way that Congress hamstrung Ford, Pelosi and Reid will push to accelerate troop withdrawal in response to enemy aggression. Thus, perception will be that we were "forced" from Iraq, and that Iran and/or AQI "won". The resulting chaos will make 2006 look like a picnic. The only way oil prices do not go past $200 a barrel is if the world is in a depression, with low demand.

If Obama catches a clue and maintains Petreaus' policy in Iraq, then the situation may not be as dire, though I think that Iraq will eventually break under the strain of repeated assults from AQI and Iran. Similar result, different timeline. And Iraq may have gotten its act together by then.

AQ will go where we are not-by ceding Iraq, we invite them back there.

[kim]

Hmmm, the Taliban is in peace talks with the Government of Afghanistan. Some wonder if they will repudiate al Qaeda to get a truce.
===============================

[PD]

What I found most interesting about the Military Times poll:

Nearly eight out of 10 black service members indicated they intend to vote for Obama despite his lack of military service and despite McCain’s record as a naval aviator and prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Sounds like racsist voting to me: They won't vote for the white guy.

[PD]

Er, "racist"

[Cecil Turner]

They won't vote for the white guy.

Yeah, saw that, and I think it warped some of the rest of the data as well (i.e., black servicemembers were grossly disproportionate in choosing the economy as the number one issue, possibly to justify Obama as the preferred candidate). However, I think SFC Derriel D. Collins had the best quote in the story:

“I’m not going to give [my vote] to you just because you’re black,” he said. “It doesn’t work like that.”

Would that all Americans saw it that way . . . identity politics would extinguish rather quickly (and good riddance).

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

Sorry for the momentary lapse in confidence in the American people.

Juan Williams had the answer on Fox News Tonight with Brit Hume.

Attack, Attack, Attack.

Wow, I am stoked again.

Now I think I understand how folks who were for Truman felt in 1948.

[stickler]

Jim Rhoads:

Now I think I understand how folks who were for Truman felt in 1948.

Except it's 1952.

[Barbara]

OT, but the video of the SNL skit (LUN) on the bailout posted by Centralcal yesterday is no longer viewable. Hum, I wonder why.

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

No, Stickler. It is 1948.

Truman was behind Dewey in all the polls through election day. Even on election night, the radio commentators (including, notably, H V Kaltenborn) were calling the election for Dewey. The New York Times even printed a "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN" edition which Truman posed with the after he had been declared the winner.

For your information, in 1952 Eisenhower beat the carp out of Adlai Stevenson, another son of Illinois. Truman did not run.

[cathyf]

It was the Chicago Tribune that printed the "Dewey Beats Truman" headline.

[Rick Ballard]

No, Jim, it's 1952 - a strong military vet is going to kick the crap out of a cheap phony "intellectual" who can't play 1/10th as well as he talks. The polling may seem like '48 at the moment but they'll change.

That cheap empty suit isn't going to have a good night at all tomorrow - and he knows it.

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

Just what I needed, Rick. I'm back in the game.

[Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet]

But HST was a vet. Dewey was an empty suit who had a talent for speechifying, played it safe and got beat.