You may as well resign yourselves to the fact that Obama is changing his Iraq policy to match McCain's, and with good reason. He's been speaking with the Iraq government:
"Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.
Iraq: The 2 Key Differences Between Obama and McCain that Must be Emphasized
Iraq is Barack Obama's signature issue. For him not to stand tall and proud on it would be worse than Al Gore's failure to mention global warming during the 2000 campaign. Thus far, he has done well politically with his position on Iraq. That often happens with fact-based, truthful policies. Funny, isn't it?
Articles are now popping up, however, suggesting that Obama's position on Iraq is stale, no longer reflecting the situation in Iraq. Those articles suggest that Obama is going to have to change his policy of a 16-month phased withdrawal, because it may upset an improving applecart that we have invested so many lives and dollars to achieve.
Changing specific policy recommendations is one thing. Changing principles is quite another. But Obama's policy recommendations must remain qualitatively, not just quantatively, different from Bush/McCain because Bush/McCain's are wrong and have been from the outset. And, Obama must make clear that his principles remain unshaken.
The two key points that must define Obama's differences with McCain are 1) Obama is committed to getting our troops out of Iraq, and will tell the Iraqis we are leaving; McCain will not. Obama will hold the Iraqis accountable with consequences; McCain will not; and, 2) that Obama had it right from the beginning and McCain was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Key Point #1: The minimal non-negotiable distinction must be that Obama will tell the Iraqis we are leaving, that our commitment is not open-ended. McCain will not.
Obama may not rigidly adhere to 16 months, but he will tell the American people in the campaign that he will tell the Iraqis that the US is leaving. He may emphasize his "make sure we get out more responsibly than we went in", but he will get the US out, and he must therefore be able to say that there are circumstances where, even if the Iraqis are not making progress, he will pull the US troops out.
That is, McCain is willing to keep the US hostage to what the Iraqis do or do not do. Obama is not.
Obama will hold the Iraqis accountable, with real consequences. McCain will not.
This is not only the minimum non-negotiable position (otherwise there is no real distinction with Bush/McCain), it is also perfect politics. If the Iraqis do make political progress between now and November, Obama can -- with great justification -- claim that it is because they know that with his election the US will be leaving that they are, finally, getting their act together and justify his long-term call for a withdrawal timetable.
If, on the other hand, progress is either spotty or non-existent, Obama will be perfectly positioned to tell the American people that the United States cannot remain hostage to the Iraqis political will. Yes, he will listen to the generals; if they tell him that the rigid timetable ought not to be followed to the last detail because some situation will improve with a little more time, then he can give them a little more time.
Flexible, yes. Open-ended, no. The emphasis is on "a little" more time, a month or two, not years.
Otherwise, like McCain's position, it makes the US hostage to the Iraqis' progress, on their timetable, not ours.
Obama's cannot, and should not.
Key Point #2: The Obama campaign should, daily, demand an answer from McCain to the question everyone else has been asked: "if you knew then what you know now, would you have voted for the war?". It is a no-win for McCain, and the Obama campaign needs to press the press to keep after McCain. If McCain says, "yes, he would have invaded", the American people will have another reason to reject him. If he says "no", his apology should be demanded and it will be interesting to see how the Republicans fry him.
If, as expected, he says "yes, but I would have fought it differently", that is fine. He will have set himself up to be "Russerted" with his own quotes:
"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." [MSNBC, 4/23/03, at least then he knew there were Sunnis and Shia, that he seems to have forgotten in 2008).
"Because I believe that the success will be fairly easy," [CNN, 9/24/02]
"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad." [CNN, 9/29/02]
"But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
"But I believe that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." [NBC, 3/20/03]
"It's clear that the end is very much in sight." [ABC, 4/9/03]
"This is a mission accomplished." [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]
"I'm confident we're on the right course." [ABC News, 3/7/04]
Oh yes, and while we are at it, why not ask him why he did not read the NIE before voting, and do not let him off the hook with "I was on the Defense Committee", as we did the Democrats in the primary. McCain should be hammered on carelessness, how could he know that the report contained no new information unless he had read it!
Key Point #3: Tie the Iraq War to the Economy. $12B per month, US needs, the debt, failure to pay for it, need for a new energy economy, and so on. The points are obvious, but they need to be made...repetitively.
The Obama campaign should also press the press to get a number from McCain -- how many more billions, how many more lives, is staying in Iraq worth? If there are no number, the commitment is open-ended.
The American people do not want an open-ended commitment.
Corollary #1: McCain's assertion of chaos and genocide if we leave cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. How does he know that? Is he as certain about that as he was that we would be welcomed as liberators? That the war would be easy? That we would not be engaged in house-to-house combat in the cities?
When inevitably challenged about "what if" chaos and genocide ensue, Obama ought to say that it is by no means a certainty, that the British left Basra to some violence but not genocide, and anyway the US cannot stay in Iraq until there is an absolute guarantee that it will not happen when we leave. If that were the criterion for withdrawal, we will be there forever. And, the American people want out, the Iraqi people want us out, and it was a stupid move to invade and occupy in the first place.
Corollary #2: Obama needs to point out that following McCain's policy either leads to a de-emphasis on al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan, or the need for a military DRAFT. There is no way both these wars can be fought without further stretching, exhausting and decimating our military forces.
Obama should oppose the "back-door" draft. He ought to say that, if that is what McCain wants, he should be man enough to do it forthrightly, and institute a DRAFT.
The Obama campaign needs to reassert its principles and define its policies, and needs to distinguish them from John McCain's. Barack Obama can modify his particular timetable, or just announce that it must remain flexible around the precise timing, but that his commitment is not open-ended, and that he may very well be forced to pull out troops if the Iraqis are not meeting milestones.
Our commitment is not open-ended. The troops will come home. The Iraqis will be held accountable. There may be some flexibility around the timing, but not much -- weeks to months, not years. And, he will be willing to pull out troops if the Iraqis are not meeting milestones.
The Democratic Congress just showed what it will kowtow to a president committed to continuing the war. Why would they behave differently to McCain's intransigence than to Bush's?
Only a president committed to ending the war can end it.
Barack Obama is that president.
But, he must make the basic differences between him and McCain very clear.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Contd. from comment above:
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702034.html
And, do you want to guess what Foreign Minister Zebari was thinking under his breath as he was having this conversation with Senator Obama?
It must have gone something like this..."Damn...why on earth didn't the American people want the most qualified and best equipped candidate in the White House...don't they know that Senator Biden is the only one who really understands how to help Iraq move toward a political solution and who is, indeed, Iraq's best friend in America...are they all nuts!?"
I'm sure that similar thoughts must have crossed the minds of more than just the Iraqi foreign minister. In fact, I'd bet the farm on it...unless it's in Iowa.
Excellent point!
Quite simple really.
Enabling dependence on US $$$ to rescue Iraqi's, or asking the Iraqi politicians to get it together and stop asking the US to babysit their corruption.
Unless Iraq postiion is like FISA? Who really knows what Obama will do on this. Right now it looks like he is "going to listen to the military professionals" and let that inform his policy. Sounds a lot like more of his moving to the center, except after all the bush/reagan years, the center seems quite a ways on the right side. What was it you all said was wrong about Hillary and triangulation, again?
The point of the article is that Barack's minimal position has to be "we're leaving" and, while he will take advice from the generals, and do what he can with the Iraqis, they no longer have a veto power over what the US does with its forces.
That's the MINIMAL position. It differs dramatically from McCain, who will not hold the Iraqis accountable.
Oddly, the likelihood of Obama's election will probably lead to more reconciliation.
A well conceived and interesting analysis. I want to highlight two points. One is that the press has a responsibility to probe the Republican position, which they are not doing. They are giving McCainn a wide berth to sling terms at the public without defining them. For example, I flinch at the reference to "winning" the war. What in the hell does that mean? Which leads to the second point. Everyone knows there is no "winning" this war militarily. We need to talk, for the sake of our sanity and security we must acknowledge that our exit from Iraq requires leadership in forging a dialogue that otherwise is not likely to happen. It is complicated. At the end of the day, the debate is not about the men and women in uniform. We can stipulate that the work they do exceeds our expectations. It is excellent!
Thus far, I have heard "winning" means a stable and secure democracy capable of defending itself. This meaning leads us back to Paul Abrams analysis because that mission, that meaning gives Iraq control of our military, treasury, foreign policy, etc. UNACCEPTABLE!
Obama is a good start to the revolution, but we all have to be involved, because one man can't turn this whole thing around. For instance, neither Bush nor Cheney are truly responsible for this mess, but they did collude with many others to create it. Should they be held responsible? Probably, but we are all in this together. Obama can be a rallying force, but he can't be the ultimate answer.
Actually, Bush under the handling of Cheney, the spokesperson for a group of Fascists, followed the (Empire) plans of the New World Order specified and spelled out in their web-page "Project for the New American Century/Statement of Principles."
More telling in this Fascist webpage was their "Defense and Nat'l Security" linked to webpage that was apparently so damaging (I kept a copy), that this Fascist organization pulled this link off their webpage. It spelled out world domination using US military bases (new) set up around the world and included space above. Their plan would be easier to impliment should a "New Pearl Harbor" happen... hello 911.
But concerning Obama and McCain, both have made concession to the Fascists in control, selling out American citizens, so the only way (we) will get the government we want, is to un-seat upper-level Congress, and elect people that will return a Constitutional-Gov of Law to 'We the People'.
Obama has NOT changed his position. Everything he said today was said during debates with Hillary
I was not saying he had changed his position, only that articles are popping up suggesting that he would have to.
I don't have a problem with a change of tactics, I do have a problem with a statement that withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground, and that we will not hold the Iraqis accountable.
My article was designed to set the MINIMUM difference between us and McCain. MINIMUM.
Exactly! And for a situation that changes like a war, there is no telling what exactly one must do. It still remains firmly that his aim is to withdraw.
McCain already answered the question about if he thinks we should have gone to Iraq even after we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. His answer was that, yes, we still should have done it because Saddam might have gotten them in the future. He and a group of other war crazy friends started talking about attacking Iraq in 1998. September 11 just gave them a lucky moment in history to get the rest of us to go along with them. But don't think that's the end for them; he said this year, "There will be many wars, my friends. Many wars." So if you want lots of war, lots of debt and no response to the needs of Americans at home, just vote for McCain. He and his friends would dig us in so deeply in the next four years that we couldn't extricate ourselves for the foreseeable future. Trillions of dollars for Baghdad, Tehran and "many wars", but not one red cent for Americans. If instead you'd like to see Americans at work in decent jobs, with healthcare, with education---if you'd like to see the country set a course that is more in line with who we've been for the past two centuries before the terrorists scared us into submission---then for the love of America, vote for Obama. It isn't too late to reclaim our country---------yet.
Unfortunately, neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain apparently understand the first thing about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and withdraw US forces without leaving a failed state in their wake. Neither senator has a "plan" nor anything that even approaches a sound and comprehensive strategy to radically change US policy in Iraq.
In this respect, it is clear, that McCain and Obama are on the same page and singing the same notes. In fact, it could be said that they are joined at the hip...along with President Bush, I might add.
I guess it's just too bad for everyone that the media, blogosphere and electorate don't really care about Iraq and couldn't recognize real leadership on this issue if they did.
Unfortunately, nothing the US does is going to determine what happens in the end, assuming there IS some point that can be called "an end".
Muqtada al-Sadr will likely become the strongman ruler of Iraq, perhaps behind a facade of a democratic government. He will have no power over the Kurds. Whether he can strike some deal with the Sunnis remains to be seen. It is also not clear whether he is pro-Iran or not, but he seems to be the most consistently nationalistic of the faction leaders.
The other question is how the Shia south with 80% of the oil relates to Shia Iran. History suggests that what may be an initial coordination will deteriorate as the old Arab vs. Persian hatreds trump their Shia identities.
Paul,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record - and a bad one, at that - the Iraqis are not going to going to come to a political solution, if one exists, on their own, as Senator Obama and others seem to believe. A political solution is not going to materialize spontaneously as the US departs and the warring Iraqi factions come together to hammer out their political future in the midst of a civil war. That kind of scenario has NEVER played out in history - the world just doesn't work that way.
Of course, I am NOT saying that the US can determine any outcome in Iraq or impose one. At this point in time, the US isn't even in a position to lead an effort to bring the Iraqis together to the negotiating table (How sad is that?). But, US leadership (if we all haven't forgotten what that is, exactly) will be required to promote and facilitate a process that will move Iraq toward a political solution under the auspices of the UN and involving the regional and major powers in an effort to support and secure whatever power-sharing arrangement the Iraqis are able to achieve.
This is, in a nutshell, the Biden strategy and the only hope there is to avoid the total and complete fragmentation of Iraq. Senator Obama would do well to embrace it.
What has Obama done as senator to oppose the war?
As he said... Since we've driven the bus off the cliff, we are pledged to support the troops. Any nay vote on funding would only hurt our troops because they would be fighting with knives and rocks....
and, as Paul stated... he did vote for a timeline for withdrawal...
What most people on here fail to understand when they say we have a "do nothing" Democratic congress is that it takes a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto and we don't have that democratic majority.. This is why it is so important to fill the Congress with Democrats this year.
So how come the republicans get their way will LESS votes in Congress then the democrats?
He voted for more money so that it could end faster.
and engaged in a little theatre.
Joined the majority to set a timetable to remove troops from Iraq. The Prez vetoed it, and they did not have 2/3 to override. Also joined less than 60 votes to cutoff debate on many war limiting and pro-soldier measures such as enforcing certain time off for time spent in the theatre of war, supported the GI Bill that McCain opposed to provide educational benefits for veterans.
If your implication is that the Dems have blown it and handed Bush what he wanted, I could not agree more. They tried, but not hard enough.
I give Obama about 2 weeks before he comes out with his 'can't leave Iraq' speech. He will basically say that because we are there, we cannot leave because if we leave we'll just have to come back besides the oil companies need protection. Obama is a fraud. His election will signal the end of the American experiment and the continuing of the empowerment of corporations in the running of the government. In other words, FACISM.
Maybe someone could start a pool.
Two weeks seems a little short, but you might be right.
Your screen name says it all. About you. What a bizarre prediction.
What if this person turns out to be right? I hope he/she isn't but god help us all if he is right
Loading comments…
Mark Wahlberg is not a fan of a "Saturday Night Live" sketch from October 4th called "Mark Wahlberg Talks...
E&P reports that Sarah Palin was greeted with a chorus of boos at the Philadelphia Flyers game where she...
This week in the best of...
At a rally in Bethlehem, Pa. last week, Cindy...
Imagine an election where one of the participants...
Does John McCain "pal around with terrorists?" Certainly...
The state of the McCain campaign is drawing fire from its own ostensible allies....
With the presidential campaign approaching its final...
Tina Fey told TVGuide she'll be "done" if John McCain and...
Posted July 3, 2008 | 01:59 PM (EST)