Posts
You may remember John McCain from when he was occaionaly covered in the news in the weeks prior to Obama's foreign tour. Here he is spelling out the character difference between he and Mr. Obama, whose ever changing positions on Iraq seem to have their motivation in partisan politics.
Showing posts with label withdraw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label withdraw. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Obama Would Rather Lose A War Than An Election
Iraq Speech Part IV: Obama's Plan For Withdraw - Contradictions & Stealth Refinements
Having finally paid a visit to Iraq but mere days after announcing his findings and conclusions, the Chameleon Candidate gave us more insight into his "strategic vision" for Iraq.
I. Obama notes that Petraeus has strongly advised against timelines because they will harm our military effort, but Obama intends to disregard the military advice of his highest commander.
Part II Obama Outlines his 16 month timeline to drawdown all combat brigades from Iraq and, in the next breath, says he will listen to his commanders.
Part III - Stealth redefining of his plan. Notable Is Obama's claim that he has "said before" that he will reenter Iraq if there is genocide.
1. Obama now presents his plan as a conditions based 'flexible timeline,' claiming that it is a "strategic vision" as opposed to an "open ended commitment" or a "rigid timetable." In doing so, he implies that McCain's plan - conditions based - is not but an open ended committment, despite the fact that we are now down to pre-surge levels in our troops. Is this a stealth refinement?
2. Timelines are the same thing Obama railed against in 2006 as being wholly inappropriate because they would hamper commanders. He explicitly notes above that General Petraeus has warned against using any timelines because of the effect that will have on security and then admits that he fully intends to disregard that military advice so he can use the money for his domestic programs. But then he says, a few minutes later, that his timeline will be flexible based on the advice of his military commanders. Is there any way of interpreting Obama's speech where those two elements are not completely contradictory.
3. Obama has spoken before about genocide - but not as a justification for reinvading Iraq. This is an outright lie by Obama. His only prior mention of genocide was that it was insufficient justification to continue with the surge.
4. Obama was unable to see that the surge would work in January, 2007. Obama was calling for an end to surge in July, 2008. Obama was calling for an end to the surge in November, 2008. So how much trust do you place in his "strategic vision"?
5. If we transition to a sixteen month drawdown, by about four months into that, the vast majority of our soldiers will have transitioned form active combat and security operations to nothing more than force protection. The Iraqis will essentially be on their own. We, for the first time since 2006, will be on the strategic defensive as we try to perform the largest retreat since Dunkirk.
6. Obama has never flushed out his plan to leave a residual combat force in Iraq to "attack al Qaeda and perform counterinsurgency operations." This man will get a lot of U.S. soldiers killed. It is taking 140,000 soldiers to perform "counterinsurgency operations" right now. A portion of that force is no longer required because we have been so successful. But drop all the way down to a division or less and they will be magnets for Iran's proxies. And, as Iran comes to dominate Iraq, all U.S. forces will be asked to leave. We will go. And we will have lost Iraq to Iran. It will be the the most costly defeat ever pulled from the jaws of an and important victory.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Doubling Down On Defeat & A Pattern Of Avoidance
Doug Ross has a superb retrospective on how our Dems have embraced defeat at all costs. After detailing their perfidy, he characterizes their actions:
They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.
No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.
Read the entire post.
Plus there is not only an embrace of defeat, but a refusal to defend it - at least from our would-be Messiah-in-Chief. Gateway Pundit notes that Obama met with Maliki but DID NOT raise the issue of his sixteen month timetable during the meeting - apparently wanting to avoid any fall out that might require Obama to publicly discuss "refining" his plans. To put this in context, Obama also deliberately avoided raising his sixteen month timetable when he had the opportunity to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in April. He went AWOL from a town hall meeting before military families where the issue of Iraq and his embrace of defeat was almost sure to be raised - rather pointedly. And he is staying as far away as possible from any debates with McCain that are not both truncated and moderated by MSM synocophants. There is a pattern here.
What does one take from all of this. My take is that Obama is one cowardly SOB without the courage of his convictions to be able to defend his positions in any sort of pointed debate.
What In The World Is Maliki Saying?
We will likely see significant force reductions from Iraq over the next several months and I would not be surprised to see force reductions below those of pre-surge levels by September. There is still a mission to keep the remnants of al Qaeda and the Special Groups under constant pressure. And there is a need to maintain significant combat power to dissuade Iran from any unwise moves for the foreseeable future. So into all of this we have McCain saying we need to drawdown forces based on conditions. We have Obama who wants to "end" the a war that is already won, pulling out all combat brigades on a firm schedule of surrender over sixteen months. And now we have Maliki saying . . . what? SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq? Maliki seems to be saying that most U.S. troops can withdraw, predicated on the security situation. I am less sanguine that the situation will allow a drawdown that fast, and it also depends on how you define "most of the U.S. troops." I would hardly call this an embrace of the hard timeline for which Obama has called as part of his plan to declare the Iraq war illegitimate. SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq? Now it appears that Maliki is closer to endorsing the Obama plan, with some lip service being paid to conditions on the ground. That would be significant. But now today we get a third version where Maliki does everything but endorse Obama for President - according to a NYT translation of the still unreleased audio. This from the NYT: . . . But in Iraq, controversy continued to reverberate between the United States and Iraqi governments over a weekend news report that Mr. Maliki had expressed support for Mr. Obama’s proposal to withdraw American combat troops within 16 months of January. The reported comments came after Mr. Bush agreed on Friday to a “general time horizon” for pulling out troops from Iraq without a specific timeline. Read the entire article. Patterico, commenting on this latest translation, notes: I trust the New York Times implicitly, which is why I see no reason for them to release the actual audio of the tape, to see if anyone disagrees with their translation. We don’t want to double-check things ourselves; we want to be told what the truth is. And yes, I’m entirely serious about that. (Click the links to see just how serious.) (H/T Instapundit) The actual audio of the interview needs to be made public to clarify what was actually said. Beyond that, Maliki may be playing an incredibly dangerous game indeed. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that the only thing standing between Iraq as a functioning democracy and Iraq as a sattelite of Iran is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. While Maliki may be playing for the domestic political scene as it exists today, his politicing could well undermine John McCain and do his country incredible harm in the long run if the U.S. elects as President a man whose central promise has been to declare Iraq an illegitimate war and a defeat. If we are asked to go, we of course should do so. But Maliki may have just bought himself a defeat straight from the jaws of victory.
PM Maliki's interview with Der Spiegel has now been translated into three different versions. Did Maliki say in the interview that he wanted to see the complete withdraw of U.S. troops from Iraq within sixteen months? Translation one - no. Translation two - maybe. And now the NYT translation three - yes, and Maliki all but endorsed Obama. What is going on?
Before addressing what Maliki said, let's address the current context. We have won the counterinsurgency war in Iraq. For all of the reasons I posted here, it's over. Having called it several days ago, McCain, apparently read my post and followed suit with his own announcement of victory two days later.
Unfortunately, victory in a counterinsurgency does not mean the end to hostilities - just that the enemy is so fragmented and the government sufficiently strong that, so long as the military continues its current clean up operations aimed at pressuring the remnants of the enemy still milling about in the dark corners, the the enemy cannot conduct any sustained operations. That goes for both Iran through its proxies and al Qaeda. If major hostilities restart, and that is still possible over the next few years, it will be a new war. That said, as I wrote in my post assessing victory in the counterinsurgency war:
Hot Air captured the initial translation published by Der Spiegel of their interview with Maliki:
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
That would seem to coincide with this from General Petraeus in an interview given before the Der Spiegel interview was published:
But then there was translation two, also captured at the Hot Air link above. Der Spiegel did a bit of covert midnight editing and, voila, the interview now reads:
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.
The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.
“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”
But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.
UPDATE: What is the point? A number of people are making a big deal of the fact that the statement from Maliki’s office was issued by CENTCOM, after the U.S. Government contacted Maliki’s office. It is relevant, then, that Der Spiegel’s original translation contained exactly the part that Maliki’s office insists was left out of the final version — namely, an explicit condition that Maliki’s agreement to a rough 16-month timetable “[a]ssum[es] that positive developments continue.” In other words, Maliki’s support for withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
NYT Calls Iraq For Obama
A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama. Read the entire article. Based on what I have read to date, it would appear that the only clique that wants the U.S. out of Iraq quickly are those in league with Iran. The Sunnis want us to stay for at least a decade, the Kurds are ready to apply for statehood (if accepted, it would mark a major step towards Obama's goal of leaving office with 7 new states having been added to our country), and the vast majority of the Shia do not want us leaving for the forseeable future. Indeed, when it comes to "occupiers," many Shia believe it is Iran, not the U.S., that seeks to be the permanent occupation force.
It's official. Obama has the Iraq vote sewn up - at least if the NYT is to be believed today. The article has all the typical NYT biases on full display, and the author even goes so far as to suggest that Obama's highly undefined plan to leave a residual force in Iraq might well be sufficient to meet Iraq's security needs. Once beyond the agenda part of the NYT's agenda journalism, the article gets interesting. Iraqis seem to look favorably on Obama because they see him as having "Muslim roots." They are also quite leary of his plan to quickly drawdown all combat forces.
_______________________________________________________
This from the NYT:
“Everyone in Iraq likes him,” said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. “I like him. He’s young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.”
But mention Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.
“Very difficult,” he said, shaking his head. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don’t have that ability.”
Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.
There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.
“In no way do I favor the occupation of my country,” said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, “but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.”
Like many Iraqis, Mr. Ibrahim sees Mr. Obama favorably, describing him as “much more humane than Bush or McCain.”
“He seems like a nice guy,” Mr. Ibrahim said. But he hoped that Mr. Obama’s statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk.
“It’s a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he’ll be able to do it,” he said. “The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time.”
. . . Even as some Iraqis disagreed about Mr. Obama’s stance on withdrawal, they expressed broad approval for him personally as an improvement over Mr. Bush, who remains unpopular among broad portions of Iraqi society five years after the war began. No one interviewed expressed a strong dislike for Mr. Obama.
Saad Sultan, an official in an Iraqi government ministry, contended that Mr. Obama could give a fresh start to relations between the Arab world and the United States. Mr. Obama has never practiced Islam; his father, whom he barely knew, was born Muslim, but became a nonbeliever. Mr. Sultan, however, like many Iraqis, feels instinctively close to the senator because he heard that he had Muslim roots.
“Every time I see Obama I say: ‘He’s close to us. Maybe he’ll see us in a different way,’ ” Mr. Sultan said. “I find Obama very close to my heart.”
Race is also a consideration. Muhammad Ahmed Kareem, 49, an engineer from Mosul, said he had high expectations of Mr. Obama because his experience as a black man in America might give him more empathy for others who feel oppressed by a powerful West. “Blacks suffered a lot of discrimination, much like Arabs,” Mr. Kareem said. “That’s why we expect that his tenure will be much better.”
. . . Mr. Obama has advocated a withdrawal that would remove most combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Despite some fears about such a departure, that stance is not unpopular here. Many Iraqis hate American forces because soldiers have killed their relatives and friends, and they say they want the troops out.
“Of course I want the American forces to leave Iraq,” said May Adnan Yunis, whose sister was killed, along with a female and a male co-worker, when they were gunned down by American soldiers while driving to work at Baghdad International Airport three weeks ago. “I want them to go to hell.”
After the killings, a statement by the American military describing the three employees as “criminals” who shot at the soldiers inflamed Iraqi officials even more. In a rare public rebuke of the American military, the Iraqi armed forces general command described the American soldiers’ actions as crimes “committed in cold blood.”
For General Hiti, who commands a swath of western Baghdad, the American military is a necessary, if vexing, presence. He ticks off the ways it helps: evacuating wounded Iraqi soldiers, bringing in helicopters when things go wrong, defusing bombs, getting detailed pictures of areas from drone planes.
But the issue of withdrawal is immensely complex, and some of the functions mentioned by General Hiti would not be affected under Mr. Obama’s plan. The senator is calling for the withdrawal of combat brigades, but has said a residual force would still pursue extremist militants, protect American troops and train Iraqi security forces.
. . . But for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security in the neighborhood. Saidiya, a southern Baghdad district, was so brutalized by violence a year ago that a young Iraqi television reporter who fled thought he would never come back. But a telephone call from his father in December persuaded him to return. An American unit had planted itself in the district, helping chase away radicals. The family could go out shopping. They could drive their car to the gas station.
“The Americans paved the way for the Iraqi Army there,” said the young man, who married this year. “If they weren’t there, the Iraqi forces could not have taken control.” Even so, he agreed with Mr. Obama’s plan for a faster withdrawal. American forces “helped the Iraqi Army to get back its dignity,” he said. “They are qualified now.”
But Iraq is now a complex landscape. Some areas are subdued, and others are still racked by violence and calibrating troop presence will be tricky.
Falah al-Alousy is the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area, Mr. Alousy said.
“Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw,” he said. As for Mr. Obama’s plan for withdrawal, “It’s just propaganda for an election.”
Most Iraqis dislike the fact that their country is occupied, but a few well-educated Iraqis who have traveled abroad say they would not oppose a permanent American military presence, something that Mr. Obama opposes. Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. “I have no problem to have a camp here,” he said. “I find it in Germany and that’s a strong country. Why not in Iraq?”
Monday, July 14, 2008
Maliki & Obama Have Something Common
US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline. Read the entire article.
It appears that Maliki and Obama have something in common, but despite what Obama has written in the NYT today, that something is not the desire for a precipitous withdraw of U.S. troops from Iraq based on a negotiated timeline. Rather, the similarity begins and ends at having to correct "inartful" statements by their subordinates. Obama has made a cottage industry of disowning "inartful" comments by his campaign. Maliki apparently has now had to do the same - specifically, the claim by his office that he was seeking to negotiate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
I refrained from blogging over the past week on the claim that Maliki was seeking to negotiate a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq because it was out of character for Maliki, at least as I assessed his character over the past two years. I waited, expecting a clarification. The clarification has come. This from the BBC:
The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".
Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.
The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.
He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops.
Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline.
He said the talks were focused on agreeing on "timeline horizons, not specific dates", and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.
Militant elements
The confusion reflects the dilemma facing Iraqi government leaders.
On the one hand, many of them - particularly among the Shia factions - face a public which regards the US presence as a problem rather than a solution.
With provincial elections coming up soon, they could be outflanked by more militant elements such as the supporters of cleric Moqtada Sadr, who wants American forces out now and opposes negotiations that would cover their continued presence.
Yet the government knows that its own forces are not yet in a position to stand on their own against the two major challenges they face - the Sunni radicals of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the militant Shia militias which were partly suppressed in fierce battles this spring in Basra and Baghdad.
Both groups could simply bide their time awaiting the American withdrawal before making a comeback drive.
. . . The indications are that the talks are now focusing not on deadlines for a complete withdrawal - but on phasing US troops out of Iraqi cities, and into a role providing logistical backing, firepower and air support, with a reduction of front-line troops.
"On substantive issues, there's not much daylight between the two sides," said a US official close to the troop talks with the Iraqi government.
"The troops will leave when the Iraqis are ready to take over. But they [Iraqi leaders] need to get what they need, and to get cover for it.
It is politics - how you package it, how you sell it to your people. They want our support, but they also want to show that there's progress towards sovereignty."
What the Iraqis see as issues of sovereignty have been a sticking-point in the talks, especially such items as a US demand for operational freedom and immunity from prosecution for US troops.
Officials admit that the negotiations are in a state of flux, and that the Status of Forces Agreement, which was to have been concluded this month, may end up being a simple protocol or memorandum of understanding giving some sort of legal basis for a continued US presence after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year. . . .
Iraqi leaders will no doubt continue to make ambiguous statements. And US presidential contenders will no doubt continue to construe them to their own advantage.
But when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.
(H/T Hot Air, Gateway Pundit)
Friday, July 11, 2008
ABC Asks Some Of The Questions That Obama Should Have Asked
Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Read the entire article.
In April, during the hearings with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, Obama had an opportunity to raise and discuss his plans to order a withdraw from Iraq unrelated to conditions on the ground, beginning immediately and being completed within 16 months. This would have given the public a platform to evaluate Obama's insane plan. From a national security standpoint, from an Iraqi security standpoint, and from a U.S. force protection standpoint, the plan would deeply harm the U.S., play into the hands of Iran and al Qaeda, threaten all the security and political gains made in Iraq, and threaten the security of our withdrawing forces. Indeed, what Obama proposes would turn into a Dunkirk for U.S. forces. Obama studiously refrained from asking before the public any questions that would have raised these issues. But today, at least ABC News is asking some of them - those that concern logistics and force protection.
__________________________________________________________
This from ABC News:
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party's nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
That phrase, "sustainable security," is something you hear a lot in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who is the operational commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, says he has seen things improve significantly here.
As for Obama's stated plan to bring home the troops within 16 months, Austin said, "I'd have to see the entire plan. I'd have to understand the strategic objectives of the leadership, and based on those strategic objectives, come up with operational objectives. It's very difficult to comment on one way or the other, whether one plan would work or one plan wouldn't work. Right now, we are helping the Iraqis achieve sustainable security, and helping them to increase the capability of the Iraqi security forces, and we are making great progress along those lines."
On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave," West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."
But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."
Success on the battlefield is not the only complication with Obama's plan.
Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time frame would be difficult, as well.
The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out."
It is the equipment that is the real problem.
. . . While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Chameleon Candidate's Position Du Jour On Iraq
Obama's positions change with the rapidity by which a chameleon changes color. But a few days ago, he started the morning saying that he expected to "refine" his position on Iraq after meeting with the Commanders (some have suggested that it would be with General Pew and Admiral Rasmussen). By the end of the day, he was once again proclaiming his utter determination to declare Iraq a defeat and withdraw over sixteen months - irrespective apparently of considerations of our national security interests. That lasted two days, before his most recent change of colors while in an interview with the Military Times:
(H/T Gateway Pundit).
Gone again is any mention of the immediate "change of mission" and withdraw in sixteen months. This man's cynicsm and apparent lack of principle seems only matched by his blind ambition.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
McCain, Timetables and Timeframes
McCain gave a superb speech in Ohio today setting forth the goals that he wanted to accomplish as President over a four year term. One of the topics McCain discussed was Iraq and a timeframe in which he expected our nation to succeed in stabilizing Iraq and defeating the dual existential threats to both America and that nation's nascent democracy.
Barack Obama has posed a timetable for withdraw from Iraq with the last of our combat brigades fighting a rearguard action out of Iraq within 16 months, irrespective of conditions on the ground. John McCain said in his speech that he expected to win the war in Iraq and to have most of our combat troops withdrawn from Iraq by 2013. The difference between those two visions and those two plans is the difference between night and day. The former envisions declaring Iraq a defeat and leaving it to be "Lebanized" by Iran and reinfested by al Qaeda. The second envisions doing what is necessary to fully defeat these threats and stabilize Iraq - a nation where accomplishing those goals is becoming a more realistic possibility with each passing day. Nonetheless, here is how the NYT spun McCain's comments in the lead paragraph of its article reporting McCain's speech:
Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013 and that the nation would be a functioning democracy with only “spasmodic” episodes of violence. The comments were a striking departure from his usual refusal to set a date for American withdrawal.
Read the entire article. Is there anyone in the MSM today who has a shred of intellectual honesty left?
Here is McCain's full speech today
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Democrats Go On The Offensive
“The decision to go into Iraq was a blunder and it is the cause of al Qaeda and Iran going into Iraq. The surge has not resulted in reconciliation. Basra was done for political purposes. We need a timetable for withdraw and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. We need Iran as partners to assisst with stabilizing Iraq. The money we are spending is breaking our budget. We have finite resources.” And for that very disingenuous performance, he of course earned copious praise from the MSNBC crowd.
Our partisan Dems were kind enough to instruct General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the objective reality in Iraq during hearings before the Senate committees today. And, in a few instances, our Dems even managed to work in a question or two. What became clear were the new Democratic talking points. And there were even two award winning performances. The most smacked down award goes to Evan Byah while Obama takes the Slick Willie award:
__________________________________________________________
I’ve spent the day watching and blogging the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker before Congress, including the three Presidential candidates. Here are my observations as to our partisan left.
1. The laugher of the day has to go to Biden who concluded his speech opening the hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee by saying that those who advocate leaving Iraq immediately are being being "unfairly" labled as "defeatists." In reality, they are "patriots." Right. If that is how we defined "patriots" since 1776, we would be singing God Save the Queen today and Washington, D.C. would be abutting the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.
2. Gone is any question that includes the words “bench marks.” That favored of all topics but a few short months ago has been vanished from Democratic vocabulary except for speeches to which neither Petraeus or Crocker are afforded an opportunity to respond. The answer of course would have been that 12 of the 18 benchmarks are substantively met and the other six are all on a forward trajectory.
3. Democrats have become fiscally conservative, seeing the money being spent in Iraq as breaking our nation’s economy. Of course, what was unsaid was that Obama and Clinton have both promised to use the money going to Iraq to fund their vast new experiments in socialism. I guess this would be called highly selective fiscal conservatism.
4. Several Senators tried the argument that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have been lying when they have repeatedly said, as recently as four months ago, that Iraq is the central focus of al Qaeda. According to these budding intel analysts, bin Laden is conducting a brilliant disinformation campaign designed to bankrupt America by keeping us fighting in Iraq. The fact that al Qaeda's defeat in the Iraq is having a very negative impact on the popularity of their cause apparently does not enter into Democratic calculus.
5. Many of the Senators claimed our forces are too stretched by the Iraq War so that we are unprepared to respond if our forces are needed elsewhere. The unspoken logical extension of that is let’s surrender in Iraq so that we can bring our troops home and they can prepare for a hypothetical war that no Democrat will committ ground forces to anyway. And that way, Congress will not have to waste money increasing the size of the military that is the smallest in our nation’s history since WWII. Its a far left two'fer.
6. Iran is an ally of the Shia in Iraq and in a close relationship with Maliki. Apparently, allowing Ahmendinejad to conduct a state visit to Iraq a month ago showed the Iraqi Shia led government to be in an anti-American alliance with Ahmedinejad – a bargain they sealed with a kiss. I thought that was a hanging offense in Iran. Perhaps Ahmedinejad is just letting his hair down outside of Tehran.
7. Iran is only conducting its malign proxy actions in Iraq, attempting to recreate Lebanon in Iraq, is only because the U.S. is in Iraq. If only the U.S. would leave Iraq, Iran would immediately stop their attempts at meddling and embrace Iraq. The fact that an Iraq with a real democracy and that honors the millenium old Shia tradition of a wall between mosque and state, if you will, presents a mortal threat to Iran by its very existance on Iranian borders is apparently merely ancillary to this argument.
8. The Basra offensive, with Shia on Shia violence, was proof positive that the surge had failed. The fact that the Basra offensive was the government seeking to stop criminal gangs who contol Iraq’s sole port and economic center were apparently not reasonable justifications for the offensive. Nor was the fact that the only militia to react is armed, funded and trained by Iran. That was not evidence of a civil war. It was evidence of an Iran Iraq war.
9. We have not conducted a "diplomatic surge." Other Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, are not assissting us enough in Iraq because of a failure of Bushian diplomacy. Apparently, the fact that Iraq, if we succeed, will be a shining democracy amongst a world of repressive police states – and will be a particular threat to Iran – simply does not explain the lack of concern amongst Middle Eastern countries with making Iraq a success. It must be Bush's fault. And as to Iran, we have tried to set up meetings with them for months to discuss Iraqi security. Unfortunately, they keep running into "unavoidable conflicts" with scheduling.
10. Multiple Senators strong armed Crocker to submit the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that we are negotiating with Iraq to Congress for approval. The fact that this will be an Executive Agreement within the President’s Article II powers to sign and that Crocker said will not in any way tie the hands of our next president is meaningless to the narrative that this is an end run around Congress. As is the fact that President’s have negotiated SOFA agreements without Congressional approval in 79 out of 79 other similar scenarios. Clearly, the Democrats would love to see our forces in Iraq with no authority under international law or by force of agreement between the U.S. and Iraq.
11. Most of the Democrats did not understand why we could not predict today a bright line set of conditions that would allow us leave as soon as we meet them. Particularly disingenuous was Obama, who was trying to portray those in favor of staying in Iraq as only planning to draw down when every last al Qaeda sympathizer is wiped out or jailed. No one has ever claimed that, though Obama stated it today as if its been part of the Republican platform since 2002.
And the Most Smacked-Down award goes to . . . . .
Senator Evan Byah. Senator Bayh sounded like a lawyer doing just an incredibly poor cross examination.
- Bayh tried to get Petraeus to say that reasonable people could disagree on how to go forward in Iraq – clearly implying that an immediate withdraw is within reason. Petraeus picked it up and responded that reasonable people could differ, but anyone who advocated a quick withdraw would "not be reasonable."
- Bayh was the brilliant mind that suggested it is possible that bin Laden and Zawahiri are both lying about Iraq still being al Qaeda’s central focus, merely trying to stretch our effort and break our piggy bank. Crocker indicated he rather believed bin Laden on this one.
- Bayh asked Crocker to agree that we needed to put more pressure on Iraq’s government by giving a time certain deadline for withdraw. Crocker responded that his experience was that political progress and concessions occur when there is less pressure on the Iraqi legislators, not more. Further, the pressure of a timeline for quick withdraw would end the political gains in their tracks as each side starts to look at what is to come after America pulls out.
- Finally, Petraus responds to Bayh’s suggestion that our effort in Iraq has caused an increase in jihadi recruitment. Petraeus disagrees and then goes on to state he believes bin Laden’s repeated assertions about the centrality of Iraq to al Qaeda and that removing troops cannot be on a date certain. It must be conditions based if it is to be done while sustaining the progress made to date.
The Slick Willie Award for prevarication and disingenuousness in the spirit of William Jefferson Clinton goes to . . .
Obama.
Obama had a perfect opportunity to let Petraeus and Crocker ponder the ramifications of his plan to get out of Iraq a brigade or two a month. True, in prior testimony, Petraeus and Crocker were both explicit that that a precipitous withdraw would be an incredible disaster – and that of course is what Obama has proposed. Instead of asking about the problems with his surrender plan, Obama spent his time asking rather innocuous questions that sounded sage but were of little substance. Only when his questioning was nearly done did he make a statement, not allowing Petraeus nor Crocker the opportunity to respond. To paraphrase, Obama stated his narrative:
Friday, March 14, 2008
Obama, War and Political Expediency
[C]haracter matters in war, more so than in any other endeavor. By character I mean attempting to do what one perceives as right based on principles, even if doing so comes at great personal cost. It is the polar opposite of making decisions on the basis of expediency. In that post, I go on to demonstrate why the character of a commander is so critical, and that a person willing to subordinate their principles on the scales of political expediency is not acceptable as a wartime commander in chief. They will be less likely to prosecute the war to successful conclusion and their decisions will be more likely to endanger our soldiers. Read the entire post. . . . If Barack Obama eventually wins the Democratic nomination, his extraordinary rise may be traced to a speech on Oct. 2, 2002, at an antiwar rally in downtown Chicago. That day, Obama, then an obscure state senator, said: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Read the entire article.
Michael Gerson documents how Obama has placed political expediency over principle on the issue of the Iraq War. This transcends the mere question of whether Obama is being less than honest with the American public and goes to the heart of whether we would want such an individual as Commander in Chief.
______________________________________________________
I am inclined to take candidates at their word. But that said, even if Obama has no intention of withdrawing our soldiers from Iraq were he to be elected president, would we not want such an individual as commander in chief of our soldiers during time of war? As I have written before:
Within that rubric, Obama clearly falls on the side of a person who has demonstrated that he places political expediency over principles. Michael Gerson, in an excellent article in today's Washington Post, examines Obama's changing positions on the Iraq war and compares them to McCain's steadfast adherence to his principles.
For many Democrats, this prescience has given Obama the aura of a prophet. And this early opposition lends credibility to his current promise: to swiftly end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.
Recently, this pledge was called into question by Obama's now-former adviser, Samantha Power, who said: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground."
. . . In a new article on Commentary magazine's Web site, Peter Wehner undertakes a thorough examination of Obama's record on Iraq. It is, shall we say, complex.
More than a year after the initial success of the invasion, Obama explained, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." And he was correct. In July 2004, he argued that America had an "absolute obligation" to stay in Iraq until the country stabilized. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died."
Two months later, Obama criticized Bush's conduct of the war but repeated that simply pulling out would further destabilize Iraq, making it an "extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." And he signaled his openness to the deployment of additional troops if this would make an eventual withdrawal more likely.
In June 2006, Obama still opposed "a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops." "I don't think it's appropriate for Congress," he said, "to make those decisions about what happens in the field."
By late 2006, as public support for the Iraq war disintegrated and his own political ambitions quickened, Obama called for a "phased withdrawal." When Bush announced the surge, Obama saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there" -- a lapse in his prophetic powers.
When Obama announced his presidential candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007, he stated, "I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." Then in May and again in November, he voted against funding American forces in Iraq.
Wehner concludes that Obama is guilty of "problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst." And he notes that while McCain has been consistently right about Iraq in the years since the invasion -- highly critical of the early strategy and supportive of a successful surge -- Obama has been consistently wrong in supporting the early, failed strategy and opposing the surge, even as its success became evident.
. . . [T]here is little doubt that Obama has gained in political support among Democrats as his positions on Iraq have become progressively antiwar. His March 2008 withdrawal deadline -- which is up now -- would have undone the Anbar Awakening, massively strengthened al-Qaeda and increased civilian carnage. . . .
The Iraq war determined the paths for McCain and Obama. But there is a large difference between them. McCain eventually won his nomination because he showed political courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. Obama may eventually win his nomination because he surrendered to that pressure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
