Obama’s judgment on Iraq
The worm has turned, according to an article by George Packer in the New Yorker entitled “Obama’s Iraq Problem.”
Yes, Obama’s Iraq problem. A year ago it was John McCain who was supposed to have such a serious Iraq problem that it would keep him from ever being nominated for President. But as McCain himself said at the time, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.”
He might still lose that election. But if he does, it won’t be because of his profile in courage on the surge.
McCain’s utter isolation at that time might be difficult to recall, since everyone is now busy jumping on the “of course the surge worked; but what about the….(insert here the other pressing unresolved issue of your choice)” bandwagon. But back in February of 2007 it was a very different story:
In a crowded field of candidates, [McCain] is the only full-throated defender of the increase in U.S. troop levels and the war itself.
In a turn that’s nearly Shakespearean, McCain—Bush’s chief rival for the Republican nomination in 2000 and a critic since then on everything from tax cuts to torture—finds his fate inextricably tied to the fortunes of his onetime adversary and the increasingly unpopular war he is prosecuting.
McCain’s unyielding stance on Iraq has bolstered him with Republican regulars but eroded his standing among the independents and crossover Democrats who boosted his presidential bid seven years ago. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Thursday through Sunday, one in four independents and two in three Democrats say they’re much less likely to support him as a result.
That was then, this is now. Presently the surge is one of McCain’s strongest points, plus the character it took to take such an unpopular stand. His initial support of the war is still unpopular with the American people; that’s why Obama is hammering home that part of the McCain story rather than the latter portion, and emphasizing his own initial antiwar position back when it was a no-brainer stance for an Illinois State Senator from a liberal district.
It is indeed ironic—although I’m not sure it reaches Shakespearean proportions—that McCain’s support for the surge allies him sufficiently with his erstwhile nemesis, Bush, to make Obama’s charge that they are virtually one and the same stick with a certain proportion of the populace who possess short memories.
As coverage of the surge’s results in Iraq grows more and positive (although less and less frequent) in even the most liberal of the MSM, Obama does face a potential problem. But probably not much of a problem. His supporters have weathered countless other reversals of position, so whatever way he decides to spin this one should hardly make them blink.
The best time to do so would be in a speech given after his trip to Iraq. Prediction: he will emphasize changed conditions on the ground, make no mention of his earlier failed predictions, do the Aiken thing and propose to declare victory and get out, and then say how BushMcCain botched Afghanistan and all the other trouble spots around the world and how the great Obama will fix those.
The Packer article has a few passages that especially drew my attention:
In hindsight, it was a mistake—an understandable one, given the nature of the media and of Presidential politics today—for Obama to offer such a specific timetable [for Iraqi withdrawal]. In matters of foreign policy, flexibility is a President’s primary defense against surprise.
I’m puzzled by Packer’s assertion that this could be seen as a mistake in hindsight, but as an understandable and reasonable position at the time. It was understandable only as a politically expedient position that has subsequently backfired.
I’m no military expert, but even I had the foresight (see this, this, and this) to understand that timetables would do away with such flexibility, and would telegraph to the enemy the exact amount of time they needed to lie low and wait it out until we left and they could take over. This is hardly rocket science, brain surgery, nor even Presidential-caliber thinking. It is merely common sense coupled with a bit of logic (some knowledge of history doesn’t hurt, but it’s not even required).
Packer also writes:
[Obama] doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded Al Qaeda in Iraq, reé«nergize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Moqtada al-Sadr to recoup his militia’s recent losses to the Iraqi Army, and return the central government to a state of collapse.
It’s the word “doubtless” that I’m not so sure about in the above passage. If Obama didn’t see the flaws of a timetable and precipitous withdrawal back then, why would he see these results as inevitable or even important now? If in the next couple of months Obama acknowledges the advances in Iraq and changes his tune on withdrawal timetables, it will be an indication that he does. If he never addresses the issue at all, we won’t know what he thinks or what he will do until after he takes the helm in the event of an election victory.
And then there’s the closing line of the Packer piece. After describing a plan Obama should endorse that seems more or less identical to John McCain’s plan, Packer has this to say:
If Obama truly wants to be seen as a figure of change, he needs to talk less about the past and more about the future: not the war that should never have been fought but the war that he, alone of the two candidates, can find an honorable way to end.
Obama alone? With all due respect, is Packer stark raving mad?
“…is Packer stark raving mad?”
Yes.
He is driven mad because his political and philosophical wishes are unfulfilled. Like a child: he wants his way, and cannot fathom why he is not getting it.
McCain and Republicans should force Obama to say what, in his opinion, constitutes the threat America faces from Iraq and the larger region – including Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa, and Indonesia.
McCain might benefit from some personal rumination about that threat.
If Obama truly wants to be seen as a figure of change, he needs to talk less about the past and more about the future:
Yes he is right he should leave the past!
Barack’s Defense Secretary: Bob Gates?
McCain and Republicans should force Obama to say what, in his opinion, constitutes the threat America faces from Iraq and the larger region – including Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa, and Indonesia.
They need to make distinctions, that it doesn’t matter how Bush and coalition UN nations justified the war, the result are a watershed blow against the rise of global theism chiefly in the Islamic world, a culture that enslaves one half of itself, the woman half; that says we attack you because our holy books say that we must do so; God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes. God is great. God is great.
These are actions and free speech that Western Liberalism has a right to defend itself over. All we can hope for is a miraculous and reasonable majority, war is never popular, not even was D-Day as at this time 40% of Americans were for a negotiated peace with Hitler even then.
Packer is much more charitable toward Obama than he was to the struggles of the American forces in Iraq post invasion. In “The Assassin’s Gate” he spared no criticism, allowed no understanding of the blind alleys followed and abandoned. Methinks he, like the New Yorker, has an ideologic framework when “reporting.”
Perhaps Obama’s chastising MoveOn over it’s Petraeus ‘Betray Us’ ad is a preping of his supporters for a major turnaround in his Iraq stance. If he does do that I will give him another look. He’s a smart guy after all and it would be good to have a black man in the White House. But I like McCain’s energy positions so I might still vote for him.
Re. Danzig/Gates. Obama lets his crew say whatever they think might win a vote. He stays in the background so he can later say they don’t represent his thinking if the mood changes. The Gates thing is name dropping, pure and simple.
Martin: Now that the surge is working, Obama is willing to criticize the Betray Us ad. He didn’t do it when he needed MoveOn’s help against Hillary. He isn’t very good at standing up for principles when it might have a political cost. Think of all those “present” votes.
Finally, Packer is a jerk. I’m still waiting for someone to probe how Obama reached his position on Iraq. Could it be that he was seeking the support of a pacifist group and that he didn’t know a damned thing about the issues? People like Packer never bother to find out.
It requires the ability to do strategic thinking and the “practical wisdom” to make a habit of doing so. People locked into slogans and charisma are notoriously poor at that, and so are notoriously reckless (not by intent, but be the abandonment of “practical wisdom”/prudence/situational awareness/whatever).
Let’s think systematically instead of strategically.
The Bush Administration claims to have a goal: foster democracy in Iraq, and by extension through the Middle East, for the good of the people of the region and the prevention of terrorism. OK, so let’s look at what the words mean. Democracy means rule by the people; rule means a legal and practical monopoly on the use of force. So, then, does Iraq qualify as a democracy now? Nowhere near, because their government doesn’t rule. In the event of a disagreement, the most effective armed forces now in Iraq will follow the orders of the United States government, a government the Iraqis have no say in electing.
If Iraq passes the status of forces agreement the Bush Administration has requested, will they qualify as a democracy then? Not really, because the proposed agreement would give such wide latitude to the American forces stationed in Iraq that the Iraqi government would not have a monopoly of force.
If you want to foster a democracy, you have to accept uncertainty. Iraq will not remain democratic if Iraqis themselves do not choose, and fight for, democracy. Even if you succeed in fostering democracy, you may not get the results you want; the Iraqis may elect a government you do not like, the way the Palestinians elected a Hamas government. Senator McCain says he will prevent that by stationing troops in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary.
Yet the current approach, to look for certainty in your Iraq policy, can lead to only one certainty, that of failure. You can only have democracy in Iraq by taking a risk and giving up control. And at some point, waiting to take that risk fosters conditions that reduce the risk of success. Iraqis who greeted the prospect of democracy with enthusiasm will conclude that they have exchanged a tyrant for a colonizer.
You can only succeed with an act of courage and faith in democracy. That means making a commitment to succeed, to draw down your military presence in Iraq to the point where the Iraqis control their own country, and to do it by date certain.
If Iraq passes the status of forces agreement the Bush Administration has requested, will they qualify as a democracy then? Not really, because the proposed agreement would give such wide latitude to the American forces stationed in Iraq that the Iraqi government would not have a monopoly of force.
All these years after WW2 I have been thinking that post-war Germany was a democracy. Now I find that I was totally wrong because US troops have been in Germany and are still there. What could I have been thinking? I’m going to have to throw away all these books on history that currently occupy some of my shelf-space.
You can only succeed with an act of courage and faith in democracy. That means making a commitment to succeed, to draw down your military presence in Iraq to the point where the Iraqis control their own country, and to do it by date certain.
Here again I have been corrected in my viewpoint. I thought the way to win the Iraq War was by military force. It turns out that the best way would to be withdraw the troops. Darn that General Petraeus! He sure took us down the wrong path with the Surge, didn’t he. And I was taken in by it all. Silly me.
rule means a legal and practical monopoly on the use of force
That’s the kind of totalitarian crap the Left keeps producing and people keep eating and asking for more of.