WaPo: Obama is Clueless on Iraq
|
|
Barack Obama is his party’s presumptive nominee for President because he was the first and the loudest candidate to oppose the War in Iraq. That issue is the single greatest factor precipitating Obama’s rocket-like ascent within the Democratic Party. Unfortunately for America, it becomes more and more apparent with each passing day that not only does Barack Obama have no idea what should be done in Iraq, even more concerning is the fact that he clearly doesn’t care.
This fact is driven home today by an unlikely source, The Washington Post. In a blistering editorial, the Post lambastes Obama for favoring political posturing over sound policy in Iraq. Quoth the Post:
Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
As the editorial rightly concludes, Barack Obama “is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.” Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is simply more important to Obama and his supporters than whatever impact such withdrawal could have on the long-term safety and security of Iraq, America, and the World. This is proven not only by his foolish adherence to an arbitrarily selected timeline, but also by his attempts to whitewash his past criticisms of the surge, now that it is clear that strategy has worked.
Despite his obvious political skills, Barack Obama’s stunning lack of experience or understanding of military and foreign affairs ought to be too great a handicap for any person seeking this nation’s highest office in such a time of global uncertainty. For those who care about both getting our trooops home as quickly as possible AND securing long-term political and military success in Iraq and elsewhere in the Global War on Terror, John McCain is the only choice for President.
I don’t think Obama has a lack of understanding here. Getting out of Iraq and structuring our military in such a way that it will be effective in targeted responses to 21st century threats is an essential necessary step in ensuring the safety of the United States and its interests abroad. Why shouldn’t we treat the Iraqi government as sovereign and respect their wishes in removing ourselves from their nation?
From the editorial…
“Whether or not the war was a mistake…”
That statement alone impeaches the entire column. Less violence is very welcomed news. Hopefully it will get us closer to leaving. And stopping the $11 billion a month drain. But the Iraqi revenue sharing deal has not been done, the re-Baathification law has not been put into place and it has been described by many as further isolating the Baathists. Rarely is mentioned that the sunni awakening councils are being paid by US to play nice, and these same people were called insurgents prior to us paying them. Similarly the 21 miles of 15 foot cement blast walls in Baghdad separating sunni and shia slums gets little press as does the fact that previously mixed neighbors are much more segregated due to our inability to stop the civil war. Once a population/sect realignment occurs like it has in the capital, a drop in voilence would be expected.
Having said that, lets continue to put lipstick on the pig, finish propping up the Iranian-friendly gubmint in Iraq, heed Maliki’s very recently repeated request for a US troop withdrawl date (which reflects the majority of Iraqi opinion) and start packing up.
The most important foreign policy call of the last 25 years was the decision whether or not to invade Iraq. Obama had it right and McCain had it wrong.
This sums it up nicely…
The practical meaning of “The Surge” has changed while the pretended meaning has stayed the same.
The PRETENDED meaning is, The US increased troop strength in Iraq for a period of time beginning in 2007. The ACTUAL meaning is, the US increased troop strength WHILE ramping up a program to pay off Sunni resistance leaders WHILE Iraq’s warring ethno-religious factions finished completely remaking Iraq’s demographic patterns, owing to tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of exiled and internally displaced, WHILE the US turned the capital into a warren of barricades. The net result of all those changes has been a less obtrusively violent Iraq for the time being, and the whole arrangement is “The Surge” in practice, but the cheerleaders talk as if it was all due to The Surge in pretense. Meanwhile Iraq’s “calm” would count as calamity almost anywhere on earth but Darfur or Zimbabwe.
That’s leaving aside the essential truth that The Surge is not The War and The War remains a massive waste and a monstrous crime.
“That’s leaving aside the essential truth that The Surge is not The War and The War remains a massive waste and a monstrous crime.”
So here we are on the verge of total victory in Iraq, having deposed a genocidal tyrant, and inaugurating a democratic government in the heart of the Middle East, and all you liberals want to do is ‘wank’ about its imperfections.
You call this a ‘crime’? The one that Hillary & Kerry voted for? That one? But I suppose the Democrats latest ‘call to arms’ to invade & liberate Darfur wouldn’t be a crime, would it? That’s completely different.
Democrats have been wedded to failure since the inception of their party, and apparently that’s not going to change any time soon.