Transitioning From Surrender To Victory

The Times repackages Obama's campaign promises on Iraq:

Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

I applaud the use of quotes around "end the war" in the lead, since ending US involvement is quite different from ending the war.  In fact, when Obama proposed his surrender strategy in January 2007 the National Intelligence Estimate was that the most likely result would be an increase in violence, which did not sound like an "end" to the war.

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

That was then, of course.  Now the surge, opposed by Obama as likely to lead to an increase in violence, has contributed to a much more stable and promising situation.  The Times soldiers on:

As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come.

There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

People hear what they want to hear.  But last summer with Katie Couric Obama wanted them to hear about the residual force that would be available to assist the Iraqi security forces.

The Times closes with an entertaining "Then and Now":

At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps’ letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.

“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I’ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama’s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.

“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.

“And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?” Mr. Gates said. “And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.”

I have not done the math but there are currently 15 combat brigades in Iraq; current plans seem to call for an additional three brigades (and support troops) in Afghanistan.  Even allowing for rotations I would guess that getting all fifteen brigades out in sixteen months is not required in order to support the Afghanistan mission.

The strategy of declaring defeat in Iraq and blaming Bush seems to have gone by the boards.

 

Comments

[Semanticleo]

Maguire, the Predictable, has picked up on the final threads of the last post, and thereby allows me to recycle my last comment.

I think I'll copy to WORD, as I'll no doubt have many additional opportunities to respond to the monomaniac.

Solidify your power base BEFORE you exorcise the demons in the Body Politic.

I love it when the Obama antagonists revile him for not living up to their Socialist standards AFTER they threw every possible
kitchen sink at him before the election.

For conservatives, the glass is always half-empty.

[Semanticleo]

You'll always have Chambliss.............

[Semanticleo]

and possibly, Coleman.

[kim]

Obama=Bush Lite.
==========

[michaelt]

“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”

Wouldn't he really need to bring in the commander of Central Command to do this? He didn't know this as late as July?

[bgates]

Why should he know it, michaelt? 53% of the voting public didn't know or care, just like most of them don't know or care now that he was lying.

[Jack is Back!]

Like his predecessor Clinton, he will co-opt Bush and claim that it was he, The Lightworker, who finally brought victory to Iraq. That it was his staunch promotion of a quick exit that prompted Petraeus and Maliki to do all the things that they had delayed and failed to do. Believe me, Iraq is going to come back big in the news - all good things and all good things as a result of the intelligence and god-like magic brought by Obama. Mark my words!

[Jane]

For conservatives, the glass is always half-empty.

Oh dear, Cleo changed his mind again.
Are you trying to be like Obama?

[Pofarmer]

to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,”

I hate to point out the obvious, but training and logistical support troops aren't going to do much protecting. Surely Obama isn't fibbing it up again?

[Davod]

Jack is Back is right. The One will declare victory on January 21, 2009, because of the amazing turnaround since his election in November 2008.

The media and 98 percent (there are always some slow learners in the pack) of academics will applaud the forthright and inspirational leadership which enabled such an event. And the people were happy, and the world breathed a sigh of relief.

[Thomas Jackson]

The annointed one will find a way to declare victory and exit as quickly as he can. Never have so many, done so little, for so few.

[Roger]

First of all, every candidate says things during the campaign that if elected they cannot produce. McCain would have been in the same position. Campaign rhetoric from either side has to be taken with a grain of salt. It has always been that way, it will always be that way.

That said, Obama on many issues is showing great flexibility on his part, a trait he seems to have that sadly our former president either lacked or only possessed in small quantities. Some times things change, some times you discover conditions you did not know about before hand. I would much rather have a president willing to learn, grow, and make the needed changes rather than like the past admin that took years to correct the errors in its Iraq policies.

On many fronts Obama is showing great promise. His selections of people for his administration show a desire to govern from the center where he can reach the majority of the American people. I would suggest people give him time, at least UNTIL he IS IN OFFICE before condemning him.

We need to pull together. It is sink or swim time, boys and girls.

[clarice]

"Flexibility", yeah that's it--flexible enough to lie about what he said with a straight face...over and over and over again.

[East Bay Jim]

Olga Korbut didn't have the flexibility that Obama is displaying.

Roger and Cleo make interesting bookends to this post's comments. The former celebrates centrism and the latter celebrates that Obama is pulling the wool over Roger's eyes.

[Pofarmer]

His selections of people for his administration show a desire to govern from the center where he can reach the majority of the American people.

What he's demonstrating is that he didn't have a frickin clue what he was gonna do if he actually managed to get elected. In addition to that, he was willing to say absolutely anything to accomplish the first goal.

[JM Hanes]

Roger:

Obama sure learned a lot between Nov. 3rd and Nov. 5th, didn't he?

"We need to pull together. It is sink or swim time, boys and girls"

So you're saying we should ignore the example set by the Democrats for the last 8 years? I'd have said it was sink or swim time in Congress when we set out for Iraq, but apparently, that was just a war, and this is hope & change we're talkin' about.

Obama's selections suggest he has no real quarrel with Bush on foreign policy or Iraq, which I'm certainly relieved to see. On the domestic front where left/right really counts, however, Daschle at HHS is no centrist, and until we see his Education pick, I'd say the jury is decidedly still out.

[PD]

First of all, every candidate says things during the campaign that if elected they cannot produce. McCain would have been in the same position.

Pshaw.

McCain has had a consistent position over a long period of time, and one may reasonably credit him for supporting the surge regardless of whether it would cost him.

Obama talks both sides of the issue, carefully hedging and waffling so as to have deniability when faced with any particular criticism. Take him to task for taking position A, and it's "No, as I've clearly repeatedly said in the past, I support B." Take him to task for taking position B, and it's "No, as I've clearly repeatedly said in the past, I support A."

I have never heard anyone preface so many remarks with "As I've clearly said..." That's a sure sign that know one knows what the heck he's ever really meant.

[PD]

s/know one/no one

[Andrea Bailey Willits]

Conservatives should just be happy that Obama is moving to the center at this early date and appointing a surprisingly cogent administration. If we have to have the illuminati in the White House, I think other than FOCA, Obama is turning out to be less radical and unpleasant than we thought.

[clarice]

andrea, wait..it's early yet.

[MayBee]

I'd have said it was sink or swim time in Congress when we set out for Iraq, but apparently, that was just a war, and this is hope & change we're talkin' about.

Oh, Amen! JMH.
Suddenly we are in the times of the great patience that must be had.

[Donald]

"Flexibility"...that's a good one. I prefer 5th rate political hack who would say anything, and I mean ANYTHING to get elected.

[Pofarmer]

Apparently Andrea has forgotten the Clintoon years, and the time directly preceeding them. Conservatives shouldn't be happy about this cabinet at all.

[ew]

The fact that the leftist illuminati has already changed their tune some about what they're going to do signals to me that it might have not been so well planned to begin with..

[richard mcenroe]

Someone needs to tell the Lightweightworker what support troops are, I think.

Are we saying we're going to leave the 101st Gentrification Division in Iraq? Or the 82nd Grief Counselors? Does he seriously think he can leave forces in Iraq without a substantial combat capability -- and probability?

Or does a US artillery battalion firing in support of an Iraqi division count as 'support troops' in the Chocolate Ken Doll's mind?

[dick]

What it looks like so far is that Bambi is gonna continue Bush's policies and goals and have them implemented by Clinton's castoffs and failed staff.

Break out the popcorn.

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the flyff gold ; my friend tells me how to use.