Attempts to defend Obama's shift on Iraq lack logic, seriousness, chronology
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | New Yorker | Obamafiles — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Attempts to come to terms with, and to defend, Barack Obama's sudden attempt to walk back the centerpiece of his presidential campaign -- unwavering opposition to the effort in Iraq, regardless of facts on the ground or of new information -- have abounded over the last few days, with each falling well short of anything even remotely resembling intellectual honesty or seriousness.
A couple of the latest have come from the New Yorker's George Packer, and from our old friend Andrew Sullivan -- someone whose writing contains intellectual honesty only rarely, and intellectual seriousness never.
Sullivan has this to say about Obama's sudden lurch to the right on Iraq:
"Any potential president who is uninterested in the facts on the ground in calibrating his Iraq policy would be another George W Bush."
All I have to say is, whoever usurped Bush's presidential duties from December 2006 onward, and is therefore actually responsible for effecting a wholesale change in the entire strategy of operations in Iraq as a result of the deteriorating situation on the ground there, while Sully's ideological allies on the left side of the legislative aisle were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any changes from being made, did one heckuva job.
There's no doubt the situation in Iraq progressively worsened over a long enough period of time that the administration has little or no excuse for not recognizing and responding to it with a series of adjustments in how the postwar was being waged. However, for Sully to make that claim after 2006 is simply ridiculous. Fortunately, none of us are surprised to see such ridiculousness emanating from that dank, musty corner of the blogosphere.
The New Yorker's George Packer took a slightly different tack, deciding that acknowledging progress in Iraq as a result of President Bush's willingess to change strategy was an Okay thing to do -- but, in the process of twisting things around as much as possible to defend Obama, he screwed up his timeline royally (while also doing wonderful imitation of Sullivan in terms of abandoning intellectual seriousness). According to the UK First Post:
Read on...
George Packer writes in the New Yorker that the situation "on the ground" in Iraq today is entirely different to when Obama originally told voters about his plans for troop withdrawal. As a result Obama should not be criticised for adapting: "In matters of foreign policy, flexibility is a President’s primary defence against surprise." Packer writes that the improved conditions in Iraq can be attributed to "President Bush’s surge, the change of military strategy under General David Petraeus [Ed: Both of which Obama opposed], the turning of Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the Sadr militia’s unilateral ceasefire and the great historical luck that bought them all together at the same moment." So this is no time for a withdrawal.
Obama needn’t be bashful about admitting his Iraq policy was flawed - he simply needs to adjust his presentational style when talking about the war: "Obama has shown...that he has a talent for candour...One can imagine him speaking more honestly on Iraq...he could say 'That was always a goal, not a blueprint. When circumstances change, I don’t close my eyes - I adapt.'"
Let's (quickly) work the timeline on this, just using events related to Packer's "analysis":
- • Fall 2006: The "turning of Sunni tribes against al Qaida" begins in Anbar Province (known as the Anbar Awakening)
- • December 2006: President Bush announces a change of course in Iraq in response to the three-year-long deterioration of the situation on the ground there
- • January 2007: General Petraeus is confirmed by the Senate to be the new commander of Multinational Force-Iraq. He brings with him a counterinsurgency strategy that is to be bolstered by an increase in combat troops in Iraq by 20,000 (this is what Packer refers to as "Bush's surge"; he is apparently confused enough to think the 'surge' and the counterinsurgency strategy implemented by Gen. Petraeus are separate developments in the prosecution of the Iraq postwar).
- • August 2007: The Awakening spreads to Baghdad, where, in Salman Pak, the first Concerned Local Citizens group is formed
- • August 2007: Muqtada al-Sadr declares that the Mahdi Army is in need of "purification," orders six-month cease fire
- • December 2007: The Concerned Local Citizens program, modeled on the successful Anbar Awakening, becomes a phenomenon, with over 72,000 Iraqis serving in these citizen's groups in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces, including 35,000 in Baghdad
- • March 2008: Sadr declares another cease fire, ordering his Mahdi Army not to attack Iraqi troops and citizens and demanding amnesty from the country's government
- • May 2008: The U.S. suffers 19 casualties in Iraq -- the lowest monthly total since the 2003 invasion
- • May 2008: Leaders of Sadr's Mahdi Army sign a cease fire agreement with the Iraqi government allowing ISF unfettered access to Sadr City
Now, let's listen to Barack Obama in April 2008:
...and on July 3, 2008:
Packer is all wet on the timing of the events he claims Obama's position can be legitimately swayed by. At least he, though (and Sully as well), isn't audacious enough to change that position, then claim that it's been consistent the whole time.
Only Obama has that kind of audacity -- and only Obama thinks the American people are so stupid, and that his Jedi powers are so great, that such a claim will go entirely unchallenged especially in light of the prominence his out-of-Iraq-now position has held within the his presidential campaign.
December 2008 should be December 2007.
Great post; I like the timeline analysis.
...all this discussion is possible precisely because the surge is working.
And Senator Obama (along with almost all Congressional Democrats) opposed the surge from day 1.
OK, and of President Obama or President McCain, who do you trust to handle the draw down? The risk is that if al-Qaeda and/or Iran were to be emboldened by our withdrawal, that POTUS Obama would cut and run, rendering worthless our sacrifice.
McCain has that crazy little glint in his eye, just what a President needs to keep the b******s off-balance.
"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"
Maybe Obama sees the progress in Iraq and thinks that it'll be 16 months either way. We have 6.5 months until the next president takes office. Add 16 months onto that and we have 22.5 month, almost 2 years. Perhaps Obama assumes that with that amount of time and the success of McCain's plan, he can "listen to the commanders" and still be out in 16 months, thus being win-win for him.
...is that it wasn't but a few weeks ago when he finally buckled and (in not so many words) conceded that GWB and McCain were right about the surge and he (and Obama, etal) were wrong about it.
So, just a few weeks after making that (painful, I'm sure) concession, he's back to his usual nonsense -- but only after Obama finally agreed to go back to Iraq, see for himself what's going on, and talk with commanders on the ground about what they need to succeed in their mission.
You'll notice that Sully never encouraged Obama to have these discussions with Odierno etal. Now that Obama is going to do that, Sully makes the obvious statement that anybody who wants to be president needs to have those lines of communication.
Andrew Sullivan, to be blunt about it, is so pathetic and transparent that it's a marvel anybody still cares what he thinks. He's clearly an intelligent guy. But everything's a kneejerk with him...determined primarily by the personalities involved.
What's a shame is that, at one time, he really wasn't like that. In fact, I remember him scolding other people he read for looking at everything through a prism of the people involved in a story.
Now, he's simply hysterical.
Brigades in Baghdad largely working hand in glove with ISS, no thanks to Obama, Sully or any other short sighted, misinformed, contr-intellectual liberal.
The fact is no matter how Obama spins it, he lacks the judgment, experience and candour to be President.
They can continue to preach their fallacious half truths to their uknowing and uncaring supporters and readers. But those of us actually dealing in the truth, and there are plenty of us, know better.
As an aside, if Sully did half the research contained herein, he would have never hit the keypad.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Like balancing your crystal on the back of a hog, enough hands and sedatives can produce temporary success. Iraq is the crystal here and no one should forget that it will continue to be fragile. It is convenient to ignore the fact that nothing was getting better until the tide shofted in American politics. Bush "stayed the course" until it caused the loss of the House and Senate. Suddenly there was movement both here and in Iraq to hurry up and get it right. That's the great thing about Democracy, the people don't have to be policy wonks to punish failure.
So as Afganistan bgins to fall back into chaos because we took all our forces out to get to Iraq, as our force readiness declines ever farther, let's all cheer for the surge. Though in reality it was the Sunni awakening, the ceasefire by Al Sadr, and a departure from the failed strategy that has made the most difference.
We can't afford to continue to squander men and resources on this project. Time to declare victory (or at least redefine "victory" to match the current circumstance) and deal with the serious issues of Afganistan, Al Queda, and readiness for any other fan hitting substnces. Drawing down is the only way forward. Perfection is not an option in Iraq.
Bush reminds me of the driver who says he knows the way, doesn't need a map, and wont ask for directions. After driving for hours in circles he is forced by the passengers to ask the way. Too bad the trip was a bad idea in the first place.
to constantly orient MY crystal and the hog toward victory. Losers look for a way to lose, winners go out and find a way to win.
Same thing will happen to you in November, loser.
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Is a whole lot.
Having said that, it was really hard to fight a war with only one party working for victory. When Iraqis send "thank you" cards, don't expect one.
And by the way, if ending the war in Iraq was the central issue in the defeat of the Republicans in 2006, why are we still having this conversation, and why is Obama "refining" his policy?
I'm waiting.
Actually this is counterfactual. The tactics that have comprised the surge have been used since Tal Afar in late '05. The co-opting of the Anbar tribes was reported on by Bill Roggio in March '06. The level of troops in Iraq is no different under the surge than it was during either Iraqi elections or constitutional plebiscite. The removal of Casey, Abizaid, and Rumsfeld wss political kabuki and didn't mark anything more or less than the president buying time for the existing strategy to work.
Sadly, Afghanistan is doomed by its nature to be a marginal if not failed state. It has no seaport. It produces nothing of value other than opium. The people are mostly illiterate and culturally backwards. Ten million troops in Afghanistan would not change it substantially. The best we can hope for there is something not a lot more advanced than what we see right now.
Iraq, on the other hand, is important. Al Qaeda has made it, according to al Zawahiri, their main battle. Iraq is a potentially successful nation with an educated population, a history of commercial activity, and strong non-petroleum related economic sectors. Unlike Afghanistan it is in a geographical location that actually matters.
You write as though the Awakening movement just sprung into being like Athena from the brow of Zeus. Hardly. The Awakening is the product of a lot of hard work by the US military.
And you are probably the only person who still believes Sadr created a "truce."
Too bad buffoonery doesn't cause boils on the posterior.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Just so that you can have a people worthy of your consideration.
Scram.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
These people are finding out what Bush was doing about five years too late.
obama said the same thing in both videos, yet somehow to republicans, he flip flopped...
let me give you guys the 5th grade explanation since you don't seem to use adult comprehension:
"A Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning." Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem easier to understand and solve."
"A tactic is a conceptual action used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal. A tactic is implemented as one or more tasks. These concepts can be defined as a hierarchy:
* Strategy
* Operational objective
* Tactic
* Task
"
Source: Wikipedia
The strategy always has and will remain the same: GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ ASAP...
The tactics to achieve such a lofty and difficult goal is what will subject to adjustments, NOT THE STRATEGY...
As for the surge, when someone drives their car into a ditch after being warned the ditch was right in front of them, I'm not giving them any credit for finally realizing after many hours of trying to drive the car out that it's probably a good idea to put some wooden planks under the tires... Also, all we've done is plug our fingers into the leaks of the dam.. Leaks we caused by the way, and now you want credit for fixing the dam?? LOL..
'A Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning." '
What would you know about that? That's right - nothing. That's why you had to go to Wikipedia to look it up.
I still smell the fear, though.
There's a finite limit to how far politicized polemics can stray from reality if anyone really wants to command the actual reality from high office.
You had such a brilliant career scoring James Bond movies and being the set designer for "Star Wars." Now your contribution is...just what you said...
If you think they are turned inside out on this - wait until BHO starts shuffling about not supporting drilling. The polls are moving in the wrong direction for him on drilling - he will soon find it necessary to 'refine' his stance on domestic production.... Oh that will be FUN...
of the Sierra Club, WWF etc. have the Dems by the huevos because they hold financial dominion over their party.
Tim Schieferecke
have you seen their latest polar bears are dying commercial.
I find it freaking hilarious when she starts to tear up.
I'm supposed to feel bad for a species that is at the height of it's recorded population? HA!
McCain for POTUS so the left can't ruin SCOTUS.
The surge was a strategy that BUILT on previous developments, and its successes would not have been possible if it wasn't for the war of attrition against the insurgency--both politically and materially--that occurred earlier.
This is not a point that's likely to be acknowledged by either Democrats or Republicans (at this point, because McCain is using the surge as a way to claim superior foresight both in comparison to Obama and the unpopular Bush).
To me, the narrative that is emerging about the surge as a "new strategy" that succeeded where everything else failed is like saying that the battles of Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, etc. were all folly and Lincoln and his generals shouldn't have met the Confederacy under arms at Manassas in 1861 and should have instead have gotten right down to forcing General Lee's surrender at Appomattox. After all, that's what ended the war!
Which means that I don't buy for a second that surge-level numbers of troops back in 2003 would have magically prevented an insurgency or made defeating it take any less time than it needed to take. It could actually have caused a good many other problems.
I sent an article to press on this very subject early this afternoon. It should be hitting cyberspace sometime tomorrow.
It is called, "Flexibility"
Stop by and check it out and let me know what you think.
Now that the Iraqi President is confident and we wants to request timeline for withdrawal and not decades, Obama will lie to us and indicates that he is proven to be correct.
In this kind of lies WE MUST ALWAYS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO:
1. Iraqi's timeline indicates that WE WON THE WAR.
2. Obama's timeline is based on his own monologue that WE LOST THE WAR AND THIS IS UNWINNABLE.
Spread that to all people because Obama will lie again to his own advantage.
Facts didn't matter. Everything Obama/Romney does is AWESOME, and will only help them. Critics of Obama/Romney are always wrong/mean-spirited/engaging in "vicious attacks"/etc.
Sullivan is a smart man, but he has lost all objectivity in his blind, unwavering devotion to The Messiah.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”