(no subject)
Analysis: The Risks of Obama's Iraq Strategy
It may be Barack Obama's consistency on Iraq policy, not the charge of flip-flopping, that puts him in the greatest political peril.
Obama was blasted for appearing to change positions twice on the same day after a pair of July 3 press conferences in which he seemed to leave the door open to extending his 16-month timeline for a withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops from Iraq then clarified that the end date would remain fixed.
Even if he did waver momentarily -- and he and his aides dispute that he did -- Obama has not abandoned his basic framework of a 16-month phased withdrawal, the retention of a "residual force" to fight terrorists, protect vital U.S. interests in Iraq and train Iraqi troops, and a proscription against the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. (He reiterated those views in a July 14 New York Times opinion piece in advance of his first trip to Iraq in more than two years.)
It is a strategy that mirrors the Iraq withdrawal provisions passed by the House in March 2007 even more than Obama's own plan from January of that year and shares its central element with the 2006 exit strategy put forward by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. Then-Rep. Martin Meehan unveiled a similar idea in early 2005.
Obama's national security critics, including many Republicans, some editorialists and even a handful of Democrats, say Obama's strategy, one initially forged years ago, ignores changing circumstances in Iraq to the possible detriment of the nation's interests and his own ambitions. Their arguments hinge on the notion that the surge has worked and that it has cleared a path to a stable, secure Iraq that allies itself with the United States.
The Washington Post decried Obama's "rigidity" as "foolish consistency" in a Wednesday editorial entitled "The Iron Timetable."
"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," the Post wrote.
Michael O'Hanlon, an Iraq war supporter and defense expert at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, told the Post that "to say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity."
The response from Republican supporters of presumed nominee John McCain has been even harsher particularly since they know that McCain's best chances for victory rest on national security and foreign policy questions.
National security and the Iraq war are issues where Obama shows his greatest vulnerability to McCain in polling. Despite leading overall in all recent national polling and by wide margins on most domestic issues, Obama trailed McCain badly in a recent Post poll on the questions of whether each candidate would be a good commander in chief of the military (72 percent said McCain would, while only 48 percent said Obama would) and whether each candidate knows enough about world affairs to be an effective president (72 percent for McCain and 56 percent for Obama).
When narrowed to Iraq, the issue can be a double-edged sword. The Post poll found Americans about evenly divided on whether there should be a timetable or not for troop withdrawal. However, reflecting other polls, it also said that they believe by a 63 percent to 36 percent margin that Iraq was a war not worth fighting.
A New York Times/CBS News poll this week said voters believe by 78 percent to 17 percent that McCain will continue the Iraq policies of President Bush, a perception that could be troublesome for him. As in the Post poll, voters said by 59 percent to 36 percent that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq. Those who believe that things are going somewhat or very badly know outnumber those who think things are going well by a more modest 51 percent to 45 percent.
On Thursday, McCain's camp released a video "documentary" of Obama taking seemingly contrary positions on a series of Iraq-related issues, including the success of the surge and funding for the war. (Obama voted consistently for funding in his first two-plus years in the Senate, then voted against a supplemental during the Democratic primary before supporting the most recent burst of money).
McCain surrogates charged that Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq based on American electoral politics not the situation in Iraq.
"You can about guarantee that he's going to take the position that satisfies the far left of his party," South Dakota Sen. John Thune said.
The Democratic National Committee and Obama surrogates countered in their own Thursday press conference that McCain has been wrong on the war all along.
"When it came to the decision to go to Iraq, Barack Obama was right. John McCain got it wrong," said Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate. Edwards ticked off a list of instances where he believes Obama showed better judgment than McCain on Iraq-related issues.
The Democrats' own video showed McCain giving different estimates for when the war would end at various points over the past five years or so.
Both sides seem to think "flip flopper" is the nastiest charge they can level. But there is also a flip-side: Obama's steadfast commitment to a specified end date for the withdrawal of combat troops -- an idea he once objected to on the Senate floor -- puts him in danger of appearing to put ideology over evidence if voters believe the surge has improved the outlook for Iraq.
Source.
Still think he's got the right idea. And If he doesn't stay committed to the time table - hypothetically, if evidence from his intelligence-gathering suggests an alteration on his estimated time-frame is possible or maybe necessary - he gets called a flip-flopper again, I bet you anything. If he does stick to it, well, you've read the article wank.
It may be Barack Obama's consistency on Iraq policy, not the charge of flip-flopping, that puts him in the greatest political peril.
Obama was blasted for appearing to change positions twice on the same day after a pair of July 3 press conferences in which he seemed to leave the door open to extending his 16-month timeline for a withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops from Iraq then clarified that the end date would remain fixed.
Even if he did waver momentarily -- and he and his aides dispute that he did -- Obama has not abandoned his basic framework of a 16-month phased withdrawal, the retention of a "residual force" to fight terrorists, protect vital U.S. interests in Iraq and train Iraqi troops, and a proscription against the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. (He reiterated those views in a July 14 New York Times opinion piece in advance of his first trip to Iraq in more than two years.)
It is a strategy that mirrors the Iraq withdrawal provisions passed by the House in March 2007 even more than Obama's own plan from January of that year and shares its central element with the 2006 exit strategy put forward by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. Then-Rep. Martin Meehan unveiled a similar idea in early 2005.
Obama's national security critics, including many Republicans, some editorialists and even a handful of Democrats, say Obama's strategy, one initially forged years ago, ignores changing circumstances in Iraq to the possible detriment of the nation's interests and his own ambitions. Their arguments hinge on the notion that the surge has worked and that it has cleared a path to a stable, secure Iraq that allies itself with the United States.
The Washington Post decried Obama's "rigidity" as "foolish consistency" in a Wednesday editorial entitled "The Iron Timetable."
"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," the Post wrote.
Michael O'Hanlon, an Iraq war supporter and defense expert at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, told the Post that "to say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity."
The response from Republican supporters of presumed nominee John McCain has been even harsher particularly since they know that McCain's best chances for victory rest on national security and foreign policy questions.
National security and the Iraq war are issues where Obama shows his greatest vulnerability to McCain in polling. Despite leading overall in all recent national polling and by wide margins on most domestic issues, Obama trailed McCain badly in a recent Post poll on the questions of whether each candidate would be a good commander in chief of the military (72 percent said McCain would, while only 48 percent said Obama would) and whether each candidate knows enough about world affairs to be an effective president (72 percent for McCain and 56 percent for Obama).
When narrowed to Iraq, the issue can be a double-edged sword. The Post poll found Americans about evenly divided on whether there should be a timetable or not for troop withdrawal. However, reflecting other polls, it also said that they believe by a 63 percent to 36 percent margin that Iraq was a war not worth fighting.
A New York Times/CBS News poll this week said voters believe by 78 percent to 17 percent that McCain will continue the Iraq policies of President Bush, a perception that could be troublesome for him. As in the Post poll, voters said by 59 percent to 36 percent that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq. Those who believe that things are going somewhat or very badly know outnumber those who think things are going well by a more modest 51 percent to 45 percent.
On Thursday, McCain's camp released a video "documentary" of Obama taking seemingly contrary positions on a series of Iraq-related issues, including the success of the surge and funding for the war. (Obama voted consistently for funding in his first two-plus years in the Senate, then voted against a supplemental during the Democratic primary before supporting the most recent burst of money).
McCain surrogates charged that Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq based on American electoral politics not the situation in Iraq.
"You can about guarantee that he's going to take the position that satisfies the far left of his party," South Dakota Sen. John Thune said.
The Democratic National Committee and Obama surrogates countered in their own Thursday press conference that McCain has been wrong on the war all along.
"When it came to the decision to go to Iraq, Barack Obama was right. John McCain got it wrong," said Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate. Edwards ticked off a list of instances where he believes Obama showed better judgment than McCain on Iraq-related issues.
The Democrats' own video showed McCain giving different estimates for when the war would end at various points over the past five years or so.
Both sides seem to think "flip flopper" is the nastiest charge they can level. But there is also a flip-side: Obama's steadfast commitment to a specified end date for the withdrawal of combat troops -- an idea he once objected to on the Senate floor -- puts him in danger of appearing to put ideology over evidence if voters believe the surge has improved the outlook for Iraq.
Source.
Still think he's got the right idea. And If he doesn't stay committed to the time table - hypothetically, if evidence from his intelligence-gathering suggests an alteration on his estimated time-frame is possible or maybe necessary - he gets called a flip-flopper again, I bet you anything. If he does stick to it, well, you've read the article wank.